Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Nakkeeran vs M/O Defence on 30 April, 2026
1 of 21
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA No. 310/00776 of 2024
DATED THURSDAY, THE 30th DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)
S. Nakkeeran,
Ρ/Τ.ΝΟ: 10763/70480
Machinist-S
Heavy Vehicles Factory
Avadi, Chennai-600 054 .
.....Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Rajesh Kumar)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Represented by The Secretary to Government
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi;
2. Directorate of Ordnance (Coordination & Services)
Rep by The Director General Ordnance
Ayudh Bhawan
10-A, S. K. Bose Road
Kolkata 700001, India;
3. The Chief General Manager
Heavy Vehicles Factory
Avadi, Chennai-600054. ...........Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. M. Kishore Kumar,SPC)
CAV ON :24.03.2026
2 of 21
ORDER
(Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J) The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 11/5/2024 passed by the 3rd Respondent and to direct the Respondents to evaluate his OMR Sheet pertaining to General Knowledge (C01) and grant appropriate marks and place him in the merit list as per his entitlement and promote him as per his marks.
2. Applicant states that he is working as Machinist-S. The 2 nd Respondent had issued notification dated 03/08/2022 stating that 25% of vacancies in Chargeman (Tech) and 25% of vacancies in Chargeman (Non-Tech) are to be filled through Limited Departmental Competative Examination (LDCE) Mode. The essential educational qualification for eligibility was 3 years Diploma or equivalent qualification certificate in the respective field duly affiliated by AICTE and two years' experience as skilled worker. As applicant was fully eligible, he applied for LDCE and he was issued admit card to attend the said examination.
3. The LDCE examination had 3 papers - General Knowledge (C01), General Engineering & Mechanical Engineering (C02), and Factory Accounting and Store Procedure (C12) and was conducted on 26/2/2023 and 28/2/2023. Applicant was sure of succeeding in the examination with good score and was optimistic that he would get meritorious rank. However when he was intimated about the marks scored 3 of 21 in the various examinations through online mode, he had scored 54 in General Engineering & Mechanical Engineering (C02) and 70 in Factory Accounting and Store Procedure (C12), but in General Knowledge (C01), in the column denoted for Marks, it was mentioned as "ONL" signifying that OMR Sheet not linked, but no specific reason was assigned regarding the same. Due to non-allotment of marks for General Knowledge (C01), his merit had drastically gone down and there was no scope of getting selected.
4. Therefore, applicant filed O.A. No. 335 of 2024 before this Tribunal which was disposed of at the admission stage itself vide order dated 12/3/2024, directing the competent authority to pass a speaking order on the representation of the applicant dated 30/3/2023, 6/5/2023 and 28/9/2023 within a period of 30 days. Applicant gave a representation along with the order of this Tribunal and consequently, the 3 rd Respondent passed impugned order dated 11/5/2024 stating the reason in para (d) as under : -
"After completing the evaluation process, when the left-out OMRS (which were not evaluated by the OMR reader) were scrutinized, it was found that OMR in respect of the applicant for the subject General Knowledge (C01) did not match with his Roll Number as he had shaded the oval for 0 (2 nd place) in place of 1 in Roll Number Column and due to this, his Roll Number read 7025122304 instead of 7125122304. Therefore, the said OMR was not evaluated during the evaluation process through OMR Reader."
4 of 21
5. It is stated by the applicant that when full correct roll number 7125122304 was written above the area allotted for shading the concurrent roll number, the respondents had correctly depicted roll number and therefore, they ought to have allowed correction of answer sheets of applicant. This type of errors were never reported earlier, and happened because the respondents had outsourced the correction of the papers to third party. Further, the respondents made sudden changes in the rules causing mental tension and making applicant nervous even before the examination which led to wrong shading of the OMR sheet. Respondents are equally responsible for such type of errors as (i) the duration of exam in the question booklet was printed as 3 hours but later the invigilators conveyed that the duration of the exam is only 2 hours; (ii) the total marks of the examination was printed as 100 marks but later it was conveyed that the question was only for 50 marks; (iii) in the Corrigendum dated 30/8/2022 issued by the respondents in Annexure D, it was mentioned that Negative Marking will be done but in the Question paper for LDCE, it is stated that there is no negative marking. because of such changes candidates could not prepare properly and they could not attempt all the question fearlessly. Since applicant had clearly mentioned his Roll number in numerical form, Respondents knew his roll number and they should have corrected the OMR sheet instead of rejecting the OMR sheet of the applicant in entirety. Due to trifle error, the entire career of the applicant is jeopardized. The applicant was not tested for his skill in filling up the Form, but he was being tested for his knowledge in a particular subject 5 of 21 and therefore, rejecting the entire Answer Sheet only for the reason that Roll number was not filled correctly in the Bubble format, despite the Roll number being filled in number correctly, tantamount to arbitrary and excessive use of power. Therefore, he prayed for the relief sought.
6. The respondents have entered appearance through their counsel, Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC and have filed their reply statement contending that the Directorate of Ordnance (C&S), Kolkata had issued instructions vide letter dated 03.08.2022 for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE)-2022 for filling up of vacancies in the post of Chargeman (Technical) and Chargeman (Non- Technical-OTS & Stores) of respective units. In pursuance to DoO (C&S) instructions, Heavy Vehicles Factory, vide Factory Order No.206 dated 16.08.2022, had notified vacancies to be filled. Pursuant thereto, applicant, working as Machinist-Skilled in Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi, had applied for LDCE examination-2022 for the post of Chargeman/T (Mechanical) and was issued hall ticket with Roll No.7125122304 for appearing in the LDCE-2022. The examination was conducted on 26.02.2023 and 28.02.2023. The applicant appeared for the examination (i.e..) General Knowledge (C01), General Engineering & Mechanical Engineering (C02) and Factory Accounting and Store Procedure (C12).
7. The complete process of evaluation was done through OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) Reader electronically. DOO (C&S), Kolkata vide letter dated 6 of 21 30.08.2022, had issued a Corrigendum along with Annexures for clarifications on amended formats, clauses and time schedule. In the Annexure regarding Instructions to the candidates of LDCE-CM (Tech & Non-Tech) 2022, specific instructions regarding OMR sheet marking and how to fill the sheets were given, which inter alia are as under: -
"18. The candidate would be required to answer on OMR sheet only. Candidates will be required to darken the circles in the OMR sheets with Black/Blue ball pen ONLY (not gel pen). OMR sheets marked with pencil would be rejected out rightty. NO marks would be allotted for questions in which partial/incomplete darkening has been done in the OMR sheet. Multiple darkening will be treated as a wrong answer. Use of whitener is not allowed on OMR.
19. The candidates should understand that OMR sheet is a machine readable document. Therefore, filling up of OMR including darkening of responses shall be done in a careful manner. Any correction. overwriting, use of whitener may lead the machine unable to read the OMRS correctly and hence such OMR may not get evaluated. Correctly.
20. The OMRs will NOT be evaluated in absence of proper filling of details by candidates. Hence, proper & complete filling of candidate's details like roll number, question booklet series etc. in OMR sheet shall be the sole responsibility of candidates.
27. Scanned copy of the OMR shall be sent to the individual email 7 of 21 ID of the candidates, after the evaluation process. For this purpose, the candidates are asked to mandatorily submit their email at the time of submission of application...
Candidates shall be responsible for the accuracy of the information. No request for supplying OMR Sheets shall be entertained later, if the valid email ID is not given by the candidates in the applications forms."
8. The back page of OMR sheet also carried "Instructions for marking of OMR", wherein, clear & specific instructions on how to fill details, including candidate's name, Roll Number, etc., were given which inter alia are as under:
"8. OMR Answer Sheet without /with wrong Subject Name, Personnel Number, Roll Number, Booklet Serial Number, Exam Venue, Booklet Series, Category and Candidate's Signature will not be evaluated under any circumstances.
11. Invalidation of OMR Sheet due to Folding / Putting stray marks/ damage to the OMR Sheets as well as incomplete / incorrect filling of the point number 1 to 7 of OMR Sheet will be sole responsibility of the candidate.
12. Any mistake in darkening the Roll Number's oval will lead to loss of identity of the candidate and merit".
9. The applicant had scored 54 marks in General Engineering & Mechanical 8 of 21 Engineering (C02), 70 marks in Factory Accounting and Stores Procedure (C12) and in General Knowledge (C01), the marks obtained column was shown as "ONL-Sheet Not Linked". After completing the evaluation process, when the left-out OMR Sheets (which were not evaluated by the OMR reader) were scrutinized by the 2 nd Respondent, it was found that OMR sheet in respect of the applicant for the subject General Knowledge (C01) did not match with his Roll Number as he had shaded the oval 0 (2nd place) in place of 1 in Roll Number Column due to which his Roll Number became 7025122304 in place of 7125122304. Since applicant had violated Instruction number 12, it resulted in his OMR Sheet not being read by the OMR reader and therefore, his OMR sheet for General Knowledge (C01) was not evaluated through OMR Reader as per the instructions stated above.
10. Being aggrieved, applicant submitted three representations dated 30.03.2023. 06.05.2023 and 28.09.2023 for re-correction of his OMR sheet for the General Knowledge (C01) and thereafter, he filed OA No. 335 of 2024 before this Tribunal seeking re-evaluation of his OMR sheet in LDCE-2022 examination pertaining to General Knowledge (C01) and for grant of appropriate marks and to place him in the merit list as per his entitlement. However, the said OA was disposed of at the admission stage by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.03.2024 directing the competent authority among the respondents to consider and dispose of applicant's representations dated 30.03.2023, 06.05.2023 and 28.09.2023 within thirty days. In 9 of 21 compliance of the said direction, the Competent Authority disposed of applicant's representations concluding that as applicant had shaded the wrong oval for his Roll Number in the OMR sheet, the same was not linked in OMR Evaluation and because of this, the department is not left with any avenues to entertain his claim and intimated the same to the applicant vide order dated 11.05.2024. Therefore, respondents have sought for dismissal of the OA as it is bereft of any merit.
11. Applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in OA and citing decisions relied upon by him. The respondents have also filed reply to rejoinder and relied on counter decisions on the issue.
12. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M Kishore Kumar, SPC, appearing for the respondents and perused the record.
13. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondents were not justified in denying evaluation of the applicant's answer sheet for the General Knowledge paper on account of an inadvertent error in shading one digit of the roll number, despite the applicant's identity being clearly established from the written particulars and personnel number. It is not a case of impersonation, fraud or suppression, but one of a minor technical lapse. Applicant's roll number and personnel number were admittedly written correctly in numerical form. The identity of the applicant was never in doubt. The rejection therefore amounts to sacrificing merit at the altar of 10 of 21 hyper-technicality, which is impermissible in service jurisprudence.
14. Ld. Counsel further submitted that examination itself was conducted under incorrect information regarding duration, total marks, number of questions and negative marking. These discrepancies were "clarified" only after the examination hours. The Respondents' justification that the OMR process is fully automated cannot be accepted as an absolute defence. Administrative convenience or software rigidity cannot override constitutional guarantees of fairness. The Respondents have acted in a discriminatory manner as a similarly situated candidate, Maneesh Kumar of Vehicle Factory Jabalpur, who faced an identical OMR-related issue in the same LDCE, was granted corrective consideration and promotion.
15. The learned counsel relied on the following decisions in support of his case: -
(i) K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) 3 SCC 512);
(ii)Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar (2024 SCC OnLine SC2);
(iii) Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, [(2024) 2 SCC 341];
(iv) Satyaveer Singh v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No.23908 of 2017] decided by Allahabad High Court on 19.06.2017;
(v) Union of India v. Sumit Kumar [W.P.(C)No. 4829/2017] decided Delhi High Court on 10/08/2017;
(vi) Mandleshwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan through Director General of Police, Rajasthan [S.B. CWP. No.10839/2012, decided on 12.09.2012].
11 of 21
16. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued that instructions had been issued by DoO (C&S), Kolkata vide letter dated 30.08.2022. As clarifications were sought, Corrigendum was issued with clarifications and amended formats, clauses and time schedule. Specific instructions to candidates in LDCE-CM (Tech & Non-Tech) 2022 along with Hall Ticket were issued on OMR sheet marking as per para 19 and 20 which stated that "Candidates should understand that OMR sheet is a machine readable document. The OMRs will not be evaluated in the absence of proper filling of details by candidates. Hence, proper & complete filling of candidate's details like roll number, question booklet series, etc., in OMR sheet shall be the sole responsibility of candidates, etc.". Important instructions were also printed on the back page of OMR and point No. 8 stated that "OMR Answer Sheet with wrong name, Roll Number, etc., will not be evaluated under any circumstances". As the applicant had shaded wrong oval while darkening the Roll Number ovals, there was violation of Instruction No. 12 which had clearly stated that "Any mistake in darkening the Roll Number's oval will lead to loss of identity of the candidate and merit", and therefore, wrong darkening by the applicant resulted in his OMR sheet being not evaluated by the OMR Reader. Applicant cannot state that no fault was committed by him. By not following the instructions given to the applicant while appearing in the examination would mean that either he was so careless that he did not read the instructions properly or did not bother to follow the same. Such a careless approach is not expected from the applicant. He should have taken utmost 12 of 21 care in shading the Roll Number in OMR sheet as clear instructions for filling OMR sheet had already been given to the applicant. Therefore, he cannot now turn around and blame the Respondents for his mistakes. Respondents cannot allow such lethargic approach of the applicant, otherwise there will be several candidates who have committed error may report to the Respondents for revaluation and all the OMR sheets will have to be verified/ checked/ processed manually. If such prayers of the candidates are allowed, it would open a Pandora box and several candidates would seek intervention taking one or the other ground, which would nullify the specific instructions provided to the candidates before and during the examination.
17. The learned counsel relied on the following decisions in support of his case: -
(i) Aditya Isha Prachi Tirkey -Vs- The Jharkhand Public Service Commission & 3 Ors. in WP(S) No.5153 of 2021 decided by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi vide order dated 18.01.2022;
(ii) Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur judgement in the case of Union of India vs. Jagdish Chandra Jat in Civil Writ Petition No.12323/2020 dated 19.08.2021.
(iii) The state of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Vs. G. Hemalathaa & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 6669/2019 decided on 28.08.2019 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court;
18. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsels on both sides.
13 of 21
19. In the face of factual matrix as pleaded and argued by both the counsels, the question to be considered is whether shading of wrong ovals for Roll Number in teeth of mandatory instructions can be treated as inadvertent and trivial error. We have analysed the decisions relied upon by the counsels on both sides.
20. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the decision of the case of K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. (Supra) wherein it was held that where the examining authority itself contributes to confusion, the candidate cannot be penalised for inadvertent lapses arising therefrom. However, it is observed that in the said case, the entire process of selection, from the stage of holding of examination, holding of interviews and finalizing the list of candidates to be selected, had been done by the Selection Committee on the basis that there was no minimum marks for interview. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that after the whole game was played under the rule that there was no minimum marks for the interview, introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed, is impermissible as it would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the of the said case is not applicable to the case on hand.
21. Even in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar (Supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 14 of 21 considering the peculiar facts of the case that the applicant, who hailed from a small village named Dheodha in Bihar and belonged to the downtrodden segment of the society, aspiring to become a Police Constable, had applied for the post under the reserved category and for that purpose, he had gone to the Cybercafé at Pakribarawan, a nearby town and with the assistance of a person running the Cybercafé, filled in his form and uploaded it online. Having possessed the eligibility criteria of being an intermediate (10+2 pass), he had cleared the written examination and the Physical Eligibility Test, however, the final results reflected him as having failed for the only reason that, while in the application form uploaded online, his date of birth was shown as 08.12.1997, but in the school mark sheet, his date of birth was reflected as 18.12.1997. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that, the appellant derived no advantage as even if either of the dates were taken, he was eligible, and the error also had no bearing on the selection. It also took note that it was stated in the counter affidavit that there were 61 unfilled vacancies Therefore, in that context, it applied the principle of de minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trifles) and held that after a candidate has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled, after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, and not for trivial omissions or errors. Therefore, the said decision is also not applicable to the case on hand.
22. The case of Vikas Pratap Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (Supra) relied upon by 15 of 21 the learned counsel for the applicant related to cancellation of the first merit list and redrawal of the second revised merit list by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board whereby the appointments of the candidates to the posts had been cancelled. Therefore, this decision also has no bearing to the case on hand.
23. The learned counsel has relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Sumit Kumar (Supra), which has no application to the case on hand because the exams were held in manual mode, it had written examination with descriptive types of papers, and the task of evaluation was also done by humans.
24. Though the learned counsel for the applicant relied on Allahabad High Court decision in Satyaveer Singh v. Union of India [W.P.(C)No. 4829/2017] decided on 19/06/2017, and Rajasthan High Court decision in Mandleshwar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan through Director General of Police, Rajasthan [S.B. CWP. No.10839/2012, decided on 12.09.2012, subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various other High Courts have taken different stand.
25. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the decision of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in case of Aditya Isha Prachi Tirkey Vs The Jharkhand Public Service Commission & 3 Ors, wherein, it is held as under: -
"8. Admittedly the petitioner has wrongly darkened the last digit of her roll number and instead of digit 8, she has darkened digit '6', 16 of 21 which is fault on her part and as per instruction in the Admit Card, such mistakes on part of the candidate, cannot be rectified by the Commission and according to the arguments advanced by counsel for the JPSC, such correction would lead to manipulation in the OMR Sheet. Thus, it is evident that the conditions/ instructions mentioned in RC/ RKr clause-4 of the Admit Card have not been fulfilled by the petitioner herself and as such, case of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the Commission for appearing in Mains Examination.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Secondly, from the record it appears that petitioner has obtained 140 marks only in totality whereas the marks obtained by the last selected candidate under the Scheduled Tribes category is 230. Thus, plea raised by the petitioner is rejected by the petitioner is rejected on this score also. Petitioner cannot take the plea to add marks of second paper of General Studies which could not be evaluated or scanned by the OMR machine due to mistake or laches on part of the petitioner herself by darkening wrong roll number. At this stage this Court cannot direct the Commission to correct the same because it would amount to mistakes are not expected by the aspirants appearing in the State Civil Service Examination. May be the petitioner has not intentionally darkened digit 6 instead of 8, but sympathy has no place in the eyes of law. The law will prevail in the terms and conditions as mentioned in the Advertisement, Admit Card and that the Rules framed by the JPSC. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ram Vijay Singh & Ors. -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh in (2018) 2 SSC 357 wherein taking into consideration its previous decisions including the 17 of 21 one in Manish Ujwal's case (2005) 13 SCC 744, the law was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as follows:-
"30.5 In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re- evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematically precision is not always possible."
9. If the contention of the learned senior counsel is accepted regarding re-evaluation of the OMR Sheet, it will amount to opening flood gate and a blanket order has to be issued regarding entertaining of those candidates, who have made incorrect entry in violation of clause 4 of the terms and conditions as mentioned in the admit card. This court sitting under article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in such matters. No interference is warranted in the Writ Petition.
10. Resultantly, this Writ petition fails and is hereby, dismissed."
18 of 21
26. The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The state of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Vs. G. Hemalathaa & Anr. (Supra) to buttress his point that mandatory Instructions have to be followed by the candidates. However, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that reliance placed by the Respondents on this case is wholly misplaced as the ratio decidendi of Hemalathaa dealt with a violation of mandatory instructions that compromised exam integrity (specifically, the use of pencil and underlining of answers), which posed a risk of revealing the candidate's identity to the examiner. However, the ratio of the judgement is very clear from the following paragraphs: -
"7. Ms. V. Mohana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent vehemently argued that we should not exercise our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. According to her, there is no substantial question of law in the S.L.P. warranting our interference. She submitted that an error was committed by the Respondent which was rightly condoned by the High Court. She made a fervent appeal to us that the career of a meritorious backward class candidate should not be nipped at the bud.
8. 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. The High Court after summoning and perusing the answer sheet of 19 of 21 the Respondent was convinced that there was infraction of the Instructions. However, the High Court granted the relief to the Respondent on a sympathetic consideration on humanitarian ground. The judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent in Taherakhatoon (D) By LRs v. Salambin Mohammad2 and Chandra Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another in support of her arguments that we should not entertain this appeal in the absence of any substantial questions of law are not applicable to the facts of this case.
10. 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 the teeth of the Instructions which are binding on the candidates taking the examinations.
11. In her persuasive appeal, Ms. Mohana sought to persuade us to dismiss the appeal which would enable the Respondent to compete in the selection to the post of Civil Judge. It is a well-known adage that, hard cases make bad law. In Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, Venkataramiah, J., held that: (SCC 735, para 13) "13.... exercise of such power of moderation is likely to create a feeling of distrust in the process of selection to public appointments which is intended to be fair and impartial. It may also result in the violation of the principle of equality and may lead to arbitrariness. The cases pointed out by the High Court are no doubt hard cases, but hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law. In the circumstances, we lean in favour of a strict construction of the Rules and hold that the High Court had no such power under the Rules.
20 of 21
12. Roberts, CJ. in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Inc held that: (SCC Online US SC) :
"Extreme cases often test the bounds of established legal principles. There is a cost to yielding to the desire to correct the extreme case, rather than adhering to the legal principle. That cost has been demonstrated so often that it is captured in a legal aphorism: "Hard cases make bad law."
13. After giving a thoughtful consideration, we are afraid that we cannot approve the judgment of the High Court as any order in favour of the candidate who has violated the mandatory Instructions would be laying down bad law. The other submission made by Ms. Mohana that an order can be passed by us under Article 142 of the Constitution which shall not be treated as a precedent also does not appeal to us."
27. The mandate of the above decision is very clear and is squarely applicable to the present case. Further, in similar cases, considering the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Hemalatha (Supra) as above, various High Courts have dismissed similar cases where the candidates had wrongly bubbled their roll numbers. The Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in its decision dated 19/08/2021 in Union of India & Others vs. Jagdish Chandra Jat in CWP. No.12323/2020, and the Jaipur Bench of that High Court in Payal Soni & another Vs Rajasthan High Court & another in CWP. No.12323/2020, have also dismissed the writ petitions based on decision in G.Hemalatha (Supra). The jurisdictional Madras High Court also has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Hemalatha (Supra) in B. Mahiban Vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission [W.P 21 of 21 (MD) No.15110 of 2020], and vide its judgement dated 04.11.2020, has held in para 6 that "In view of the settled position of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the instructions issued by the first respondent/ TNPSC are mandatory, having the force of law and the candidates have to strictly follow the instructions.".
28. In the light of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Hemalatha (Supra), which is squarely applicable to the present case, we do not see any merit in this case. Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member(A) Member(J)
30.04.2026
asvs
A.S.V. Sagar Digitally signed by ASAPU
P.S., CAT, SRINIVASA VIDYASAGAR
Date: 2026.05.21 16:39:29 +05'30'
Chennai Bench.