Madras High Court
S.Sabitha Banu vs Tamil Nadu Public Service ... on 29 January, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.990 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.(MD) No.990 of 2021
and W.M.P.(MD).No.857 of 2021
S.Sabitha Banu ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Park Town, VOC Nagar,
Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services,
O/o. the Directorate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services,
Ann Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 35. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 to
consider the candidature of the petitioner for interview and consequential
appointment to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon as per
2019-2020 recruitment of the Notification No.32/2019, dated
18.11.2019, within the time period stipulated by this Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/14
W.P.(MD) No.990 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Aswin Rajasimman for
M/s.T.Lajapathi Roy.
For Respondents : Mr.K.K.Senthil for R1
Standing Counsel
Mr.S.Dayalan for R2
Government Advocate
ORDER
Heard Mr.T.Aswin Rajasimman, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.K.K.Senthil, learned Standing counsel appearing for the first
respondent and Mr.S.Dayalan, learned Government Advocate appearing
for the second respondent.
2.The petitioner herein is an aspirant for qualifying herself to the
post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. The first respondent had called for
applications to fill up the posts of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in the
Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, for the year
2019-2020. Accordingly, the petitioner had made an application on
30.11.2019, through online mode and among the various columns in the
application, she had entered her employment status as 'unemployed',
which according to the petitioner, was an inadvertent mistake, since she
was already appointed as a Veterinary Doctor in Madurai District Co-
operative Milk Producers Union on contract basis, which position is still
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.990 of 2021
continuing. The petitioner's candidature was not considered by the first
respondent on the ground that she had failed to furnish the information
that she was temporarily employed on contract basis.
3.Mr.Aswin Rajasimman, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that though the petitioner had inadvertently
entered her employment status as unemployed, she had thereafter,
uploaded a No Objection Certificate issued by the General Manager of
Madurai District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited and
therefore, she had no intention of suppressing or giving false information
to the first respondent. He would further rely on two Division Bench
Judgments of this Court in the case of The Secretary, TNPSC Vs.
A.Suthanthiramoorthy passed in W.A.No.3285 of 2019 and in the case
of M.Silambarasan Vs. The Secretary, TNPSC and another passed in
W.A.No.424 of 2018. The learned counsel made an earnest request that
such an inadvertent mistake should be condoned, particularly, when the
petitioner had subsequently uploaded the No Objection Certificate from
his employer, which evidences that she was in fact an employee.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.990 of 2021
4.Mr.K.K.Senthil, learned Standing counsel appearing for the first
respondent would submit that the issue of committing inadvertent
mistakes has already came up before a Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in the case of P.Prabu Vs. The Secretary, TNPSC passed in
W.A.No.4318 of 2019, etc., and the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that
such inadvertent mistakes cannot be condoned. He further submits that
on the proposition, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
E.Tamizhannai Vs. The Secretary, TNPSC and another passed in
W.P.No.14635 of 2020, had reiterated the same proposition.
5.I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by
the respective counsels.
6.It is rather unfortunate that the candidature of the petitioner came
to be rejected on the ground of mistake of giving false information, when
evidently, the mistake seems to be inadvertent. I am constrained to make
such a statement in view of the fact that though the petitioner had shown
her employment status as 'unemployed' in her online application, she had
subsequently uploaded a 'No Objection Certificate' from her employer on
30.10.2020. Effectively, she had brought to the notice of the TNPSC that
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.990 of 2021
she was employed with Madurai District Co-operative Milk Producers
Union Limited. However, I am constrained to refrain from condoning
such an inadvertent mistake, in view of the decision cited by the learned
Standing Counsel for the first respondent in the case of P.Prabu (cited
supra), wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had ratified the
TNPSC's decision to reject the candidature of an applicant on the ground
of furnishing wrong information, even though it was an inadvertent
mistake. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:
“13. The candidates have against the
column "Are you a Government Employee" have
answered "No". No doubt, they have also
furnished the request seeking no objection
certificate from the employer and have also
furnished no objection granted to them. It is also
not disputed that they do not stand to gain by
giving a wrong particular. It also cannot be said
that by giving such a wrong particulars, they
would cause prejudice either to the Commission
or to any other candidate. It is also correct that
they will not derive any advantage by giving the
wrong answer. Inspite of all these, the short issue
is that can the Commission take a liberal view by
condoning this action, and consequently, whether
the High Courts, while exercising discretion
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.990 of 2021
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
can give a mandamus to the Commission to
ignore the mistake in on-line form.
14. Paragraph 19 of the Commission's
instructions to the applicants which deals with
disqualification/debarment as which is given in
para 7 of the counter affidavit filed before the
learned Single Judge reads as under:-
The following acts will end in
disqualification or debarment:
"XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(b) (ii) Suppression of material
information regarding
(a) Previous appearances or availing free
chances, employment in Government or Local
Bodies, Public Corporations, etc.
And that the applicant responsible for such
act will be debarred from appearing for the
examination and selection held by this
Commission permanently or for such period of
year as the Commission may decide and hence he
was not allowed for Oral Test. Necessary action
is being taken separately for issuing show-cause
notice to the candidate.
15. Similarly, in paragraph 13 (g) of the
Commissioner's Notification No.15/2018 dated
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.990 of 2021
10/8/2018, read as under:-
"para 13 (g) if any of their claims is found
to be incorrect, it will lead to rejection of their
candidature and suitable penal action including
debarment."
16. Counter also states that the appellants
have also given a following declaration in their
applications, which reads as under:-
"I hereby declare that all the particulars
furnished in this application are true, correct and
complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.
In the event of any information being found false
or incorrect or ineligibility being detected before
or after the examination or at any stage, any
action can be taken against me by the TNPSC
including rejection of my application. I have
gone through the instructions to the candidates
and Commission's Notification for this
recruitment before filling up the application
form."
17. The appellants/writ petitioners are not
illiterate candidates.
The consequences of the mistake even if
inadvertent was known to them. No power has
been shown to us by which the Commission can
relax any of the conditions or relax consequences
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.990 of 2021
which will follow from giving a wrong
information. No mistake can be found with the
Commission for rejecting the candidature of the
appellants on the ground of furnishing wrong
information.”
7.On the same proposition, the decision in the case of
E.Tamizhannai (Cited supra) of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
reads thus:
“4.The petitioner cannot seek refuge under
the garb of any human error or inadvertent error
inasmuch as the petitioner is a candidate for a
prestigious examination concerning the judiciary
where she should be presumed to have filled up
her form consciously and to the best of her
knowledge on the basis of the qualification
possessed by her. To permit any alternation or
change or permit the said arrangement sought by
the petitioner would be to deny any such
opportunity to a large number of such candidates
who might have committed the same error or
would like to have the same benefit which would
be violating not only the terms and conditions of
the advertisement and the application form, but
also Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.990 of 2021
India. The notification, therefore, issued for
holding of the examinations containing the
correct particulars in application form is a sine
qua non and the same admittedly having been
faulted by the petitioner, no concession at this
stage may be possible.”
8.Insofar as the decision relied by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner in A.Suthanthiramoorthy's case is concerned, it is brought to
the notice of this Court that the said case was appealed in SLP (C) 4357
of 2020 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision of the
Hon'ble Division Bench has also been stayed on 02.03.2020. As such, I
am unable to make any reference to the said order.
9.The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance in the
case of M.Silambarasan, (Cited supra) wherein, a Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court had liberally interpreted a similar clause and directed
the TNPSC to issue an appointment order. The facts in
M.Silambarasan's case may not be directly applicable to the case in
hand. In M.Silambarasan's case, the applicant therein had originally
claimed preferences under PSTM quota and in view of his inability to
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.990 of 2021
produce the requisite certificate in time, he had subsequently made a
request to treat him under General Category, stating that, his original
claim under PSTM quota was an inadvertent mistake. It is in this
background, the Hon'ble Division Bench had come to the conclusion that
the petitioner could be extended with a sympathetic view, by considering
that such a lapse would dis-entitle the petitioner to be considered in other
categories, for which, he is otherwise entitled and in this background, the
order came to be passed. On an over all reading of the decision, it is also
seen that the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench has been passed on the
particular set of facts related to the applicant therein and therefore, could
be considered as an order in persona rather than an order in rem.
Though this court empathises on the mistake committed by the petitioner,
I am rendered helpless in view of the limited scope under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, to interfere into such inadvertence, particularly,
in the light of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in
the cases of P.Prabu and E.Tamizhannai referred Supra. Further, any
indulgence by condoning the mistake of the petitioner would also amount
to modifying or relaxing the instructions issued by the TNPSC to the
candidates, which is impermissible.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.990 of 2021
10.The scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such
matters, was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of
Tamil Nadu and others Vs. G.Hemalatha and another made in Civil
Appeal No.6669 of 2019 in the following manner.
“7.We have given our anxious consideration to
the submissions made by the learned Senior
Counsel for the Respondent. The instructions
issued by the Commission are mandatory, having
the force of law and they have to be strictly
complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and
conditions of the Instructions is of paramount
importance. The High Court in exercise of
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution
cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by
the Commission.”
“9.In spite of the finding that there was no
adherence to the Instructions, the High Court
granted the relief, ignoring the mandatory nature
of the Instructions. It cannot be said that such
exercise of discretion should be affirmed by us,
especially when such direction is in teeth of the
Instructions which are binding on the candidates
taking the examinations.”
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.990 of 2021
11.The aforesaid extract is self-explanatory. As such, the grounds
raised by the petitioner may not be sufficient to invoke the extraordinary
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and condone the
lapse.
12.In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any merits in
the present writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.01.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
TM
Note: Issue Order copy on 03.02.2021.
NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the responsibility
of the advocate/litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.990 of 2021
To
1.The Secretary to Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Park Town, VOC Nagar, Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services,
O/o. the Directorate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services,
Ann Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 35.
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.P.(MD) No.990 of 2021
M.S.RAMESH, J.
TM
W.P.(MD) No.990 of 2021
29.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
