Madras High Court

The Chairman vs Sivagami Sundara Nachiyar on 3 April, 2025

Author: G.Jayachandran

Bench: G.Jayachandran

    2025:MHC:945




                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                      DATED : 03.04.2025

                                                              CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
                                                     AND
                                      THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

                                                  W.A(MD)No.8 of 2020
                                                        and
                                                C.M.P(MD)No.130 of 2020


                 The Chairman,
                 Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
                 Fort.St.George,
                 Chennai – 600 009.                                        ... Appellant/Respondent

                                                                   .Vs.


                 Sivagami Sundara Nachiyar                                 ... Respondent/Petitioner

                 PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act praying this
                 Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.25297 of 2018,
                 dated 8.1.2019.

                                     For Appellant                : Mr.J.Anandkumar
                                                                    Standing Counsel for TNPSC

                                     For Respondent               : Mr.N.Mariappan


                 1/12




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 06:42:45 pm )
                                                          JUDGMENT

                 DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

AND R.POORNIMA,J.

This Writ Appeal is filed by the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service

Commission being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, who

partly allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent seeking issuance of a

Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the result published on 17.12.2018

containing the provisional list of candidates for the oral examination in the

selection process of appointing Agricultural Officer(Extension) in Tamil Nadu

Agricultural Service.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the

materials placed before this Court.

3.The point involved in this case is that:

In the online application form, the Writ Petitioner entered her date of birth

as 08.06.1992 instead of 18.06.1992.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 06:42:45 pm ) after she clearing her main exams, while verifying her certificates for considering

her to invite viva-voce, rejected the candidature of the Writ Petitioner based on

the instruction in the notification, since they found that there is an error in the

date of birth. Her name was not included in the provisionally admitted list for

oral test. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the dictum laid down

by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Arkshit Kappor .vs. The Union

of India and others made in W.P(C)No.3721 of 2017, dated 31.07.2017 had

held that inadvertent error in wrongly mentioning the date of birth, cannot be a

reason to reject her candidature. Hence passed the following order:

‘’3.In view of the same, the Writ Petition stands allowed.There will be a

direction to the respondent Commission to include the name of the Petitioner in

the list of successful candidates in the written examination and conduct a oral

interview for the Petitioner before concluding the selection process. No costs.

Conseuquently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.’’

4.Despite this order, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has not

called the Writ Petitioner for an interview. It has proceeded with the selection

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 06:42:45 pm ) process and release the result of selected candidates on 01.02.2019 without

complying with the direction of this Court passed on 08.01.2019. Being

aggrieved by the non-compliance of the Court order, the Writ Petitioner has

moved a contempt Petition and it was listed for hearing. Thereafter, the present

Writ Appeal has been filed on the ground that the candidate who applied for

public employment is expected to furnish true and correct particulars about the

qualification, category of reservation, age, medium of instruction, physical

qualification, other basic qualifications and eligibility criteria. In the instructions,

it is clearly stated that incomplete application or application assigning wrong

claims or incorrect particulars will be rejected.

5.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when Clause 12-K

and Clause 14.0 of the Instructions to the Candidate under the caption ‘’General

Information’’ makes it clear that application with incorrect particulars will be

rejected and any application submitted through online cannot be modified or

rectified after the last date for receiving the application. While so, the Writ

Petitioner even if by mistake or inadvertence filed the field meant for age as

08.06.1992 instead of 18.06.1992, she should have sought for the rectification or

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 06:42:45 pm ) modiciation before the last date of filing the aplication, which she failed to do.

Only after clearing the main written exam, when she was called for certificate

verification, the error was found by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.

Age being one of the criteria, if two candidates secure same marks, the said

information is vital in the selection process and therefore, the name of the writ

Petitioner was not included in the provisional list for oral test.

6.Relying upon the judgment of the Honoruable Supreme Court of India

in the case of the State of Tamil Nadu and others .vs. G.Hemalatha and another

made in Civil Appeal No.6669 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.14093 of

2019), dated 28.8.2019, the learned Standing Counsel or the Tamil Nadu Public

Service Commission submitted that violation of the instructions provided in the

notificaion are mandatory and has to be treated seriously and even if the

mistake is committed inadvertendly, no lenient view can be taken. The learned

Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission would further

submit that the Supreme Court in the said judment has catetorically held that

instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory having force of law and

they have to be strictly complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 06:42:45 pm ) conditions of the notification is of paramount importance and the High Court in

exercise of power under Article 226 or the Constitution of India cannot modify or

rectify the instruction issued by the Commission.

7.The learned Standing Counsel for the Commission has also circulated a

judgment of our High Court in the case of P.Prabu and V.Arunkumar .vs. The

Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, represented by is Secretary, Frazer

Bridge Roa, VOC nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003 in Writ Appeal No.4318

of 2019, dated 11.3.2020 rendered following the dictum laid down by the

Honourable Supreme Court in the State of Tamil Nadu and others .vs.

G.Hemalatha and another. The learned Standing Counsel for the Commission

also produced a sealed cover disclosing the mark obtained by the Petitioner in

the main written examination and the cut-off mark for the respective category to

emphasise that the Writ Petitioner and otherwise is not entitled for being invited

to include in the provisional list for oral test, since it was short-listed based of

2:1 ratio and the cut-off mark fixed for the MBC/DC community was far high

than the mark secured by the writ Petitioner in the main written examination.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 06:42:45 pm )

8.As far as the instruction found in the notification, undoubtedly it

emphasise that if there is any unclear or incorrect date provided by the

candidate, the application will be rejected. Also it provides for modification of the

information furnished in the application before the last date for receiving the

application. In this case, the Writ Petitioner has given the date of birth as

08.06.1992 instead or 18.06.1992. She has not realised that mistake and rectified

it before the last date for receiving the application. She belongs to

MBC/Denotified community and the statement furnished to this Court in the

sealed Cover reveals that she has secured 283 marks in the main written

examination. The cut-off mark for MBC/DC Women is shown as 281 marks.The

date of birth orf the candidate who secured this mark is mentioned as 15.04.1996.

So if the order of this Court had been duly complied with, the Writ Petitioner

ought to have been called for the interview, since she has secured more than the

cut-off mark taken by the last candidate under MBC/DC women category since

Writ Petitioner date of birth is 18.06.1992 which clearly indicates that she is

elder to the short-listed candidate under the same category. When we examine

the application and the judgment of the Division Bench which has followed the

judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, we find that the Honourable

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 06:42:45 pm ) Supreme Court in Hemalatha’s case has found that the violation of the

instruction was the candidate has used pencil to underline the answers which is

prohibited as per the instruction. It is obvious that such an instruction is issued

since it may be used as a tool to identify the candidates who has written the

examination. Violation of that instruction will give scope to malpractice, hence,

the Court has held that it is a violation of mandatory instruction.

9.Similarly, in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the

matter of Prabu and Arunkumar, the violation is the suppression of material fact

regarding his employment to the query whether he is a Government employee.The

Writ Petitioners therein have suppressed their employment and had answered in

negative.This again, had warranted and invited rejection of their application

because if a candidate is already in Government service, No Objection Certificate

required from the present employee.

10.Whereas, in the case in hand, the Writ Petitioner while submitting her

on-line application, she has typed his age as 08.06.1992 instead of

18.06.1992.This Court, would visualize that the said mistake is due to fingering

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 06:42:45 pm ) while typing the date of birth and except fingering mistake, it is not intentional.

By this mistake, the Writ Petitioner is not going to be placed with undue

advantage as against any other candidate of the same category. Hence the order of

the learned Single Judge directing the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to

call her for the interview before completing the selection process is sustainable.

11.In this case, on the day the learned Single Judge passed the order that

was the last date for the interview, the selection of candidate was not started. It

is stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent that immediately after the

receipt of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Chairman of Tamil

Nadu Public Service Commission was furnished with order copy on 10.01.2019

and there was sufficient time for him to call the Writ Petitioner for an interview

and consider her candidature for selection, instead he failed to obey the order of

this Court and without conducting interview, proceeded with the selection

process and released the provisonal selection list on 01.02.2019.

12.This Court finds that the appellant ought not to have proceeded with

the publishing of the selection list without conduting interview of the Writ

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 06:42:45 pm ) Petitioner as per the direction of the learned Single Judge. He has thought fit to

challenge the order only after completing the selection process and after

inviting contempt notice from the Court. The information furnished in the sealed

cover also does not justify his conduct for not inviting the Writ Petitioner for the

interview.The learned Standing Counsel for the Tamil Nadu Public Service

Commission submits that they have filled the vacancies except six vacancies for

the special categtory and therefore, there is no vacancy for MBC/DC women.

This contention cannot be placed before the Court after violating the order of

this Court. By this submission, the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service

Commission try to justify his disobedience of the Court direction. Even if there

is no vacancy, the writ Petitioner has to be accomodated by creating a

supernumery post.

13.With this observation, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.