Madras High Court
The Secretary vs A.Suthanthiramoorthy on 26 September, 2019
Bench: S.Manikumar, D.Krishnakumar
W.A.No.3285 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.09.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.A.No.3285 of 2019
C.M.P.No.20911 of 2019
The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Frazer Bridge Road,
V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai - 600 003. ... Appellant
vs.
A.Suthanthiramoorthy ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against
the order made in W.P.No.29349 of 2018, dated 20.12.2018.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Devendran
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J) Instant writ appeal is filed against the order made in W.P.No.29349 of 2018, dated 20.12.2018, by which the writ court set http://www.judis.nic.in 1/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 aside the impugned Rejection List published by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai, the appellant herein, in their website relating to the post of Assistant Horticultural Officer 2016-17, in so far as the writ petitioner is concerned and directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai, the appellant herein, to appoint the writ petitioner, as Assistant Horticulture Officer, pursuant to the Notification No.10/2018, dated 25.05.2018, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
2. Shorts facts leading to the filing of the appeal are that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai/the appellant herein, invited applications only through online, for direct recruitment, to the post of Assistant Horticulture Officer, for filling up of 757 regular vacancies along with 48 short fall vacancies (45 SC, 3 ST) totalling to 805 vacancies. The last date for submission of the applications on 24.06.2018. The writ petitioner belongs to SC community and has applied through online on the basis of notification. There is no age limit for SC / ST candidates and the educational qualification for the post is "a pass in Higher Secondary Education and a pass in the 2 years Diploma Course in Horticulture". The writ petitioner has completed his http://www.judis.nic.in 2/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 higher secondary, in the year 2011 and joined two years Horticulture Diploma Course, in the year 2012 and completed the same, in the year 2014.
3. The writ petitioner was issued with a hall-ticket for the written examination. On 11.08.2018, written examination has taken place. Thereafter, the appellant herein has published the marks of the candidates. in which it is stated that the writ petitioner has secured 127.50 in Paper-1 and 76.00 in Paper-II and totally, he has secured 203 marks. His overall rank is 340 and his communal rank is 74.
4. At the time of sending application through online, his date of birth was wrongly filled up as 23.04.1990 instead of 23.04.1991 and also the date of issuance of community certificate was also wrongly filled as 16.07.2007 instead of 16.11.2007. The said error is only an inadvertent mistake committed in the computer centre and immediately, he corrected in the One Time Registration, through online, on 19.09.2018 and also by sending an e-mail, dated 20.09.2018. Thereafter, the writ petitioner brought the same to the knowledge of the appellant herein, by letter dated 23.09.2018. The appellant has also informed that his correction was updated. http://www.judis.nic.in 3/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019
5. On 27.09.2018, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai, has published the provisional selection list, for certificate verification / counselling of the candidates, who secured 150 marks in total. They were called for certificate verification cum counselling and was also issued with a letter, dated 03.10.2018, calling upon the writ petitioner, to attend certificate verification cum counselling on 23.10.2018.
6. After the receipt of counselling letter also, the writ petitioner has submitted a letter, to the appellant herein about the error committed at the time of filling up of the application and its correction, by registered letter dated 10.10.2018. The appellant has issued mail dated 12.10.2018, stating that necessary action will be taken. On 23.10.2018, the writ petitioner also attended the certificate verification,. The appellant demanded a letter from the writ petitioner stating that there was an error at the time of filing up of the online application and it is an inadvertent mistake. But, after obtaining the letter, the writ petitioner was not allowed to participate in the counselling. The candidates selected were lesser in number, than the notified vacancies and all the eligible candidates were issued http://www.judis.nic.in 4/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 with selection order. It is pertinent to mention that one Rajavel, who has secured 152 total marks and ranked 716 in overall and 182 in communal category, has been selected and appointed, whereas the writ petitioner, who secured 203.5 totally and ranked 340 overall and 74 communal category, was not selected by the appellant.
7. The writ petitioner is a meritorious candidate and belonging to Scheduled Caste and the error / mistake committed by the writ petitioner through online, has already been rectified. Action of the appellant in depriving the valuable right of the writ petitioner to get employment is challenged in this writ petition.
8. Contending that it is only an inadvertent mistake which was also rectified, the writ petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the appellant on 26.10.2018. Left with no other option except to invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the writ petitioner has approached this Court.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, vide order dated 20.12.2018 in W.P.No.29349 of 2018, Writ Court, has passed the http://www.judis.nic.in 5/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 following order:-
"6. Under the stated circumstances what is to be considered is, whether the mistake committed by the petitioner is so grave to the extent of rejecting the application itself.
7. Whether by the rejection of the application, the petitioner is left with no remedy except to apply for the next recruitment.
7.1. The incidental question will be, whether the mistake will be an inadvertent or wilful mistake.
7.2. This Court raised a specific question, whether the mistake made is grave mistake or calculated mistake or a mistake aimed with any hidden agenda. In other words, whether the act of the respondent can be characterised as the mistake made with any hidden agenda or to get an unfair advantage over another person or with an aim to get extended period if in case the petitioner is appointed.
8. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent is not able to point out anything. The main contention raised by the respondent is that, if the claim of the petitioner is allowed, it is like opening of pandora box and flood gate and the candidates, who committed simple mistakes, would rush to respondent office, thereby paralysing the administration of the respondent. It is also contended by the learned standing counsel for the respondent that the provisions in the instructions to the candidates are mandatory and no relaxation can be made from them.
8.1. Relying upon the decision reported in the case of Rahul Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar and others, AIR 1998 Punjab and Haryana 18, it is claimed that when it is provided in the information brochure that incomplete applications and the applications received after the prescribed date shall not be entertained under any circumstances, it will go to show that the http://www.judis.nic.in 6/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 mandatory nature of clauses made and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been very careful in filling up the application form.
8.2. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 714 wherein it was observed as follows:-
"... if the provision is couched in prohibitive or negative language, it can rarely be directory, the use of preemptory language in a negative form is per se indicative or the intent that the provision is to be mandatory..."
9. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent, therefore, contended that the negative prohibitory words used in the Information Brochure go to establish the mandatory nature of that provision and the petitioner should have been very careful in using the same and the petitioner has to bear the cross for the mistake done.
10. Now the issue to be considered is, whether the clauses in the instructions to the candidates should be held as directory or mandatory. What are the circumstances, which would be available to consider the clause as directory or what are the circumstances which would be relied upon to show that it cannot be mandatory but directory.
11. The fact remains that the application could be filled only online and not through offline. In other words, there is no option left to the petitioner to fill up the application form even if they are inclined by sending a hardcopy of the application. The only method available is through Online. If the applicant is versatile in handling the computer, he can send the application through Online.
11.1. The "digital divide" between the persons having technical knowledge and those who are not having is so wide that it cannot be presumed that all of them are familiar with the operation process in the computer application. When it is specifically stated http://www.judis.nic.in 7/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 that only in the computer centre the application form was filled up and having regard to the nature of the feather touch that is made available in the keyboard, the contention that even the inadvertent mistake can be construed as mandatory and this mistake should be used to punish the petitioner by rejecting his application even after the petitioner establishing his talent and knowledge in the horticulture division cannot be accepted. When it is proved that the petitioner is a competent person to be eligible for the post of Horticulture Officer, on account of the simple mistake committed by using the machine cannot be a ground for rejecting the application.
11.2. Even assuming that the petitioner is not competent the inadvertent mistake should always be excused.
13. There is certainly a difference in the valuation / evaluation made by human beings and machines. If no mistake can be corrected and every mistake is to be considered as final, then it is enough to use artificial intelligence system and there is no necessity for the involvement of human agency at all.
14. When no malafide is established, no hidden agenda can be attributed and no undue advantage is taken by the petitioner in committing the mistake, then it is necessary that the respondent must condone the mistake and take the application of the petitioner.
15. Under the stated circumstances, the impugned Rejection List published by the respondent in their website relating to the post of Assistant Horticultural Officer 2016-17, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, is hereby set-aside. The respondent is directed to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Horticulture Officer, pursuant to Notification No.10 / 2018 dated 25.05.2018, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
16. With the above directions, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMPs are closed." http://www.judis.nic.in 8/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019
10. Being aggrieved by the same, instant writ appeal is filed on the following grounds:-
"(i) Writ Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the writ petitioner Thiru.A.Suthanthiramoorthy (Reg.No.250001157) was allowed for Certificate Verification, based on his claim in the online applicatin. At the time of Certificate Verification, it was found that the writ petitioner has wrongly claimed hid date of birth, as 23.04.1990 instead of 23.04.1991 (as per SSLC and HSC Mark Sheet produced by the writ petitioner during certificate verification.
(ii) Writ Court has failed to appreciate the fact that Para 2(10) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission "Instructions to Applicants', reads as below:-
"Please note that all the particulars mentioned in the online application including Name of the applicant, Post applied for, Communal Category, Date of Birth, Address, e-mail ID, Centre of Examination etc. will be considered as final. However, applicants can modify certain fields till the last date specified for applying online. Certain fields are fixed and cannot be edited even before the closing date. Applicants are hence requested to fill in the online application from with utmost care as no correspondence regarding change of details will be entertained after last date for applying."
(iii) Writ Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the candidates were required to furnish a declaration to the effect that "All the particulars furnished in the application are correct and complete to best of my knowledge and belief. In the event of any information being 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.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019
(iv) Writ Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the correction of date of birth has been made by the writ petitioner on 19.09.2018 in the One Time Registration i.e., after last date of submission of application. Hence, the correction made will be applicable for subsequent recruitment only. In this regard, para 2 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission "Instruction to Applicants" read as follows:-
"One Time Registration is not an application for any post. It is just collection of information from the applicants and giving a separate dashboard to each applicant to facilitate them to maintain their own profile. Applicant who wishes to apply for any post shall click "Apply" against the post Notified in the Commission's website and use the same USER ID and PASS WORD given for ONE TIME REGISTRATION. USER ID AND PASSWORD are created by the applicants themselves."
(v) Writ Court has failed to appreciate the fact that paras 12 (L) (M) of the Notification No.10/2018, dated 25.05.2018, read as follows:-
12. xxxxx "L. Incomplete applications and applications containing wrong claims or incorrect particulars relating to category of reservation/other basic qualification/eligibility wise/age/communal categories/educational qualification/physical qualification and other basic eligibility criteria will be liable for rejection.
"M. One-Time Registration is not an application for any Post/Recruitment. Though the details/particulars were furnished in the One-Time Registration by the applicants, the details/particulars furnished in the online application submitted for this recruitment alone will be taken into consideration. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission will not be responsible for any consequences arising out of furnishing of incorrect and incomplete details in the application http://www.judis.nic.in 10/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 or omission to provide the required details in the application for this recruitment.
Hence, the writ petitioner's application was rejected as per paras 12(L) & (M) of the Notification No.10/2018, dated 25.05.2018 as he has wrongly claimed his date of birth in the online application for the post of Assistant Horticultural Officer, 2016-2017 and Assistant Horticultural Officer (Shortfall vacancies for SC/ST candidates only) as 23.04.1990 instead of 23.04.1991.
6. Writ Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the following categorical declaration given by the candidate in his on- line application as follows:-
"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."
11. Added further, Mr.M.Devendran, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the subsidiary Rules of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench in The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission v. D.Ashok Kumar [W.A.Nos.1354 and 1356 of 2019, dated 11.07.2019] and a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Tamil Nadu v. G.Hemalathaa [Civil Appeal No.6669 of 2019, Dated 28.08.2019]. He further submitted that even though sufficient time was given to http://www.judis.nic.in 11/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 the respondent to correct the mistakes, he had not chosen to do so. By altering the entries, seniority of the selected candidates would be altered.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.
13. Subsidiary rules of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rules, are extracted hereunder:
"FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT COMPRISING WRITTEN EXAMINATION AND ORAL TEST
(i) The merit list or the ranking list may be prepared on the basis of total Marks obtained by combining the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination with the marks of the Interview (Oral Test)
(ii) In case of the two or more candidates scoring equal marks, the candidate senior in age may be placed above in the merit list.
(iii) When the age too is equal, then the candidate getting more marks in the written examination may be placed above in the merit list.
(iv) When the marks obtained in the written examination are also equal, then the candidate who has submitted his application earlier to the Commission, may be placed above in the merit list. In the case of OMR application the date of receipt of the OMR application in the Commission's Office and in the case of online http://www.judis.nic.in 12/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 application, the date of Registration of application through online may be taken into consideration.
(v) If the date of receipt of OMR application and date of registration of Online application too is the same, the names of all such candidates be arranged in the alphabetical order to determine merit.
FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT COMPRISING WRITTEN EXAMINATION ONLY
(i) The merit list or ranking list may be prepared on the basis of total marks secured by the candidates in the written examination.
(ii) In case of two or more candidates scoring equal marks, the candidates possessing the highest qualification may be placed above in the merit list.
(iii) When the marks obtained in the written Examination and the qualifications are also the same, then the candidate senior in age may be placed above in the merit list.
(iv) When the age too is equal, then the candidate who has submitted his application earlier to the Commission, may be placed above in the merit list. In the case of OMR application, the date of receipt of the OMR application in the Commission's Office and in the case of Online application, the date of Registration of application through online may be taken into consideration.
(v) If the date of receipt of OMR application and date of registration of online application too is the same, the names of all such candidates be arranged in the alphabetical order to determine merit."
http://www.judis.nic.in 13/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019
14. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has issued notification, dated 07.11.2016, which reads as hereunder:
TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION "INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANTS"
(Revised w.e.f 07.11.2016)
1. NOTIFICATION OF VACANCIES:-
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission notifies vacancies for various posts in the Commission’s Website and Newspapers. The number of such vacancies notified by the Commission is only approximate and is liable for modification with reference to vacancy position at any time before or at the time of actual recruitment.
1/ fhypg;gzpapl';fs; mwptpg;g[:-
jkpH;ehL muRg;gzpahsh; njh;thizak;. muRg;gzpfspyl';fpa gy;ntW gjtpfSf;fhd fhypg;gzpapl';fis epug;g[tjw;fhd mwptpf;iffis njh;thiza ,izajsj;jpYk;. bra;jpj;jhs;fspYk; btspapLfpwJ/ mt;thW btspaplg;gLk; fhypg;gzpapl';fSf;fhd vz;zpf;if njhuhakhdjhFk;/ bjhpt[g;gzpfs; ,Wjpahf;fg;gLk; tiu mit ve;j neuj;jpYk; khWjYf;Fl;gl;ljhFk;/
2. HOW TO APPLY THROUGH ONLINE ,izatHpapy; tpz;zg;gpg;gJ vg;go
1. Applicants should apply only through online mode in the Commission's Websites www.tnpsc.gov.in/ www.tnpscexams.net/ www.tnpscexams.in.
tpzz
; g;gjhuu;fs; www.tnpsc.gov.in /
www.tnpscexams.net/ www.tnpscexams.in. Mfpa
http://www.judis.nic.in
14/31
W.A.No.3285 of 2019
njh;thizaj;jpd; ,izajs';fs; K:yk; kl;Lnk tpz;zg;gpf;f
ntz;Lk;/
2. One Time Registration (OTR) and applicant Dashboard are mandatory before applying for any post. One Time Registration is valid for 5 years from the date of registration.
ve;jbthU gjtpf;Fk; tpz;zg;gpf;Fk; Kd;g[ xUKiwg;gjpt[ vdg;gLk; epue;jug;gjpt[ kw;Wk; jd;tptug;gf;fk;(Dashboard) Mfpad fl;lhak; MFk;/ xUKiwg;gjpt[ gjpt[ bra;j ehs; Kjy; Ie;J Mz;Lfs; eilKiwapypUf;Fk;/
3. For applying in One Time Registration, the applicants should have scanned image of their photograph and signature in CD/DVD/Pen drive to upload the photo and signature.
xUKiwg;gjptpy; gjpntw;wk; bra;a. tpz;zg;gjhuu;fs; j';fsJ g[ifg;glk;. ifbahg;gk; Mfpatw;iw CD/DVD/Pen drive nghd;w VnjDk; xd;wpy; gjpt[ bra;J jahuhf itj;jpUf;f ntz;Lk;/
4. Applicants who have already registered in One Time Registration on or before 29.09.2015 shall use their existing user ID and Password to create applicant Dashboard in the new One Time Registration system. No applicant is permitted to create more than one registration ID in one time registration.
29/09/2015 md;nwh my;yJ mjw;F Kd;dnuh xUKiwg;gjpt[ bra;Js;s tpz;zg;gjhuu;fs;. Vw;fdnt mtu;fs; bgw;Ws;s gadhsh; FwpaPL kw;Wk; flt[r;brhy; Mfpatw;iwg; gad;gLj;jp g[jpa xUKiwg;gjpt[ Kiwapy; j';fspd; jd; tptug;gf;fj;jpid Vw;gLj;j ntz;Lk/; xU tpz;zg;gjhuh; xd;Wf;Fk; nkw;gl;l xUKiwg; gjpt[f;
http://www.judis.nic.in 15/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 fzf;if (One Time Registration ID) cUthf;f mDkjpapy;iy/
5. One Time Registration is not an application for any post. It is just collection of information from the applicants and giving a separate dashboard to each applicant to facilitate them to maintain their own profile. Applicant who wishes to apply for any post shall click “Apply” against the post Notified in the Commission’s Website and use the same USER ID and PASSWORD given for ONE TIME REGISTRATION. USER ID and PASSWORD are created by the applicants themselves. Incase, if the applicant forgets the USER ID and PASSWORD, he can change or reset them using “FORGOT PASSWORD AND FORGOT LOGIN ID, OTR ID” Options. The Commission will not furnish USER ID and PASSWORD details to the applicants.
xUKiwg;gjpt[ vd;gJ ve;jbthU gjtpf;fhd tpz;zg;gk; my;y/ ,J tpzz ; g;gjhuu;fspd; tptu';fisg; bgw;W mth;fSf;F jd;tptug; gf;fk; xd;wpid cUthf;f kl;Lnk gad;gLk;/ ve;jbthU gjtpf;Fk; tpzz ; g;gpf;f tpUk;g[k; tpz;zg;gjhuu;fs;. njh;thiza ,izajsj;jpy; mwptpf;fg;gl;Ls;s mg;gjtpf;Fhpa mwptpf;ifapy; “Apply” vd;w cs;sPL tHpna epue;jug;gjpt[fF ; hpa gadhsu; FwpaPL kw;Wk; flt[r;brhy; Mfpatw;iw cs;sPL bra;J tpz;zg;gpf;f ntz;Lk;/ tpz;zg;gjhuu;fs;. gadhsh; FwpaPL kw;Wk; flt[r;brhy; Mfpatw;iw jh';fns cUthf;fpf; bfhs;s ntz;Lk;/ tpz;zg;gjhuu; Vw;fdnt Vw;gLj;jpa gadhsu; FwpaPL kw;Wk; flt[r;brhy; Mfpa tptu';fis kwe;Jtpl;lhy; mtw;iw “FORGOT PASSWORD, FORGOT LOGIN ID, OTR ID” Mfpa tpUg;gj; bjhpt[ K:yk; kPz;Lk; cUthf;fyhk;-khw;wpf; bfhs;syhk;/ tpz;zg;gjhuu;fSf;F gadhsu; FwpaPL kw;Wk; flt[r;brhy; Mfpa tptu';fs; njh;thizaj;jhy;
http://www.judis.nic.in 16/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 tH';fg;glkhl;lhJ/
6. Applicants have to furnish their correct SSLC Register Number, Month and Year of Passing and Name of the Board which issued the certificate, while registering online. If any detail furnished is found to be wrong, both One Time Registration and Online Application will be rejected at any stage.
tpzz ; g;gjhuh;fs; ,iza tHpapy; tpzz ; g;gpf;Fk; bghGJ gs;sp ,Wjpr;rhd;wpd; gjpt[ vz;. nju;r;rpbgw;w tUlk; kw;Wk; khjk;. rhd;wpjH; tH';fpa FGkk; Mfpa jfty;fis mjw;fhd fl;l';fspy; rupahfg; gjpt[ bra;a ntz;Lk;/ nkw;go tptu';fs; jtwhf gjpt[ bra;jpUg;gpd; xUKiwg; gjpt[k;. nju;tf[ f; hd tpz;zg;gKk; ve;jbthU epiyapYk; epuhfupf;fg;gLk;/
7. Applicants who have more than one SSLC mark sheets, should enter the details available in the mark sheet issued on final attempt in which he had passed the SSLC Examination.
gs;sp ,Wjp njh;r;rpf;F (S.S.L.C) Xd;Wf;F nkw;gl;l kjpg;bgz; rhd;wpjH; itj;jpUf;Fk; tpz;zg;gjhuh;fs;. jh';fs; ,Wjpahfj; nju;btGjp nju;rr; p bgw;w rhd;wpjHpy; cs;s tptu';fisg; gjpt[ bra;a ntz;Lk;/
8. A valid e-mail ID and Mobile Number is mandatory for one time registration. E-mail ID and Mobile Number are to be kept in active mode. TNPSC will send all communications and messages only to the registered email ID and Mobile.
xUKiwg;gjpt[ (OTR) bra;tjw;F gad;ghl;oy; cs;s kpd;d';ry; Kfthp kw;Wk; miyngrp vz; Mfpait fl;lhakhFk;/ kpd;d';ry; Kfthp kw;Wk; miyngrp vz; Mfpatw;iw bjhlu;eJ ; gad;ghl;oy;
http://www.judis.nic.in 17/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 itj;jpUf;f ntz;Lk;/ nju;t[ bjhlu;ghd bra;jpfs; midj;Jk; tpzz ; g;gjhuu; gjpt[ bra;Js;s kpd;d';ry; Kfthp kw;Wk; miyngrpf;F kl;Lnk mDg;gg;gLk;/
9. Though the applicants furnish details / information in the One Time Registration, the details furnished in the application for the recruitment concerned alone will be taken into consideration for that recruitment.
tpzz ; g;gjhuh;fs; xUKiwg;gjptpy; j';fsJ tptu';fisg; gjpt[ bra;jpUe;jnghjpYk;. mtu;fs; Fwpg;gpl;l nju;tpw;F tpz;zg;gpf;Fk; bghGJ me;jj; njh;tf[ f; hd tpz;zg;gj;jpy; gjpt[ bra;j tptu';fs; kl;Lnk mtu;fs; jUk; tptu';fshf vLj;Jf;bfhs;sg;gLk;/
10. Please note that all the particulars mentioned in the online application including Nam of the applicant, Post Applied for, Communal Category, Date of birth, Address, e-mail ID, Centre of Examination etc. will be considered as final. However, applicants can modify certain fields till the last date specified for applying online. Certain fields are fixed and cannot be edited even before the closing date. Applicants are hence requested to fill in the online application form with utmost care as no correspondence regarding change of details will be entertained after last date for applying.
,izatHpapy; rkh;gg; pf;fg;gl;l tpz;zg;gj;jpy;. tpz;zg;gjhuu;fs; jUk; bgau;. tpz;zg;gpf;Fk; gjtpapd; bgau;. rhjpg;gphpt[ gpwe;j njjp. Kfthp. kpd;d";ry; Kfthp. njh;t[ ikak; nghd;w tptu';fs; ,Wjpahditahff; fUjg;gLk;/ tpz;zg;gj;jpy; mspj;j rpy tptu';fis mj;nju;t[fF ; tpz;zg;gpf;f bfhLj;Js;s ,Wjpehs; tiu njitg;gl;lhy; jpUj;jpf;bfhs;syhk;/ vdpDk;. rpy tptu';fs; jpUj;j http://www.judis.nic.in 18/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 ,ayhJ/ vdnt tpz;zg;gjhuu;fs; j';fsJ tptu';fis cs;sPL bra;a[k; bghGJ kpFe;j ftdj;Jld; cs;sPL bra;J tpz;zg;gj;ij gjpt[ bra;a[khW mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwhu;fs;/ ,WjpehSf;Fg; gpd;dh; xUKiwg;gjpt[ my;yJ ,izatHp tpz;zg;gk; Mfpatw;wpy; jpUj;jk;nfhhp njh;thizaj;jpy; bgwg;gLk; ve;jbthU nfhupf;ifa[k; guprPypf;fg;glkhl;lhJ/
11. The Instructions and Illustration regarding One time Registration are available in the website www.tnpscexams.net / www.tnpscexams.in.
xUKiwg;gjpt[ Fwpj;j mwpt[iufs; kw;Wk; tpsf;f';fs; www.tnpscexams.net/www.tnpscexams.in Mfpa ,izajs';fspy; bfhLf;fg;gl;Ls;sd/
12. An applicant already having user ID and Password, has to login. The available OTR particulars will be displayed on the screen. They have to fill up additional details required for specific recruitment application.
gadhsu; FwpaPL kw;Wk; flt[r;brhy; bgw;wpUf;Fk; tpz;zg;gjhuh;fs; mjidg; gad;gLj;jp cs;EiHe;jt[ld; xUKiwg;gjptpy; Vw;fdnt gjpt[bra;Js;s tptu';fs; jpiuapy; bjupa tUk;/ nju;thizaj;jhy; mt;tg;nghJ btspaplg;gLk; xt;bthU nju;tf[ F ; k; tpz;zg;gpf;Fk;
nghJ mjw;Fhpa TLjyhf njitg;gLk; tptu';fisa[k; gjpa ntz;Lk;/
13. After submitting the details in the application, applicants can choose any one of the following modes for making payment of examination fee.
http://www.judis.nic.in 19/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 a. Net Banking b. Debit Card / Credit Card c. Remittance through Bank Chalan d. Remittance through Post Office Chalan tpzz ; g;gj;jpy; chpa tptu';fisg; gjpt[ bra;J rku;g;gpj;jt[ld; tpzz ; g;gjhuh;fs; j';fsJ nju;t[ff; l;lz';fisr; brYj;j fPHf; ;fhQqk; VnjDk; xU Kiwapidj; nju;t[bra;ayhk;
m/ ,izatHp brYj;Jk; Kiw M/ gw;W ml;il - fld; ml;il Kiw ,/ t';fp brYj;Jr; rPl;L Kiw </ m";ryf brYj;Jr; rPl;L Kiw ONLINE FEE PAYMENT MODE:
14. An applicant who wishes to have immediate fee reconciliation, shall make payment through net banking or Debit Card / Credit Card.
,izatHpapy; fl;lzk; brYj;Jk; Kiw:
tpzz ; g;gjhuu; jhd; brYj;jpa tpz;zg;gf; fl;lzk; cldoahf kW xj;jpirt[ bra;ag;gl ntz;Lkhapd; ,izatHp t';fp nrit my;yJ gw;W ml;il - fld; ml;il K:ykhf fl;lz';fisr; brYj;jyhk;/"
15. In The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission vs, D.Ashok Kumar and other [W.A.Nos.1354 and 1356 of 2019, dated 11.07.2019] the respondents therein, by mistake, wrongly http://www.judis.nic.in 20/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 recorded the date of birth. They filed W.P.Nos.21775 and 23363 of 2018, for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the notification, dated 14.08.2018, which was published in the website, by rejecting petitioners' therein (Registration Nos.160603187 and 160603224), as not satisfied the eligibility condition as per the norms stipulated in the Notification and to direct the respondent therein, to include petitioners therein (Registration Nos.160603187 and 160603224, dated 04.08.2017) in the original verification/counselling notification, dated 14.08.2018, scheduled from 27.08.2018 till 12.09.2018 for the posts included in the Combined Civil Services Examination (Non-Interview Posts) (Group II A Services) 2017-2018 code No.004. Writ Court, by a common order, allowed their prayer. On appeal, a Hon'ble Division Bench, though upholding the power of the Commission to reject the incorrect applications, did not interfere the decision of the Writ Court. Discussion and decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the common order in W.A.Nos.1354 and 1356 of 2019, dated 11.07.2019, are as hereunder:
"6. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the candidates were given sufficient time to correct the mistakes in the application form. According to the learned Senior counsel, the respondent in the respective appeals http://www.judis.nic.in 21/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 submitted applications on the last date. It was a defective application as the particulars relating to the birth were not recorded correctly. In view of the conditions incorporated in the notification, defective applications are liable to be rejected without notice to the parties. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the provisional selection of the respondent subsequently would not cure the initial defect of submitting a defective application.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India, dated 23 December 2016 in W.A.(C)No.11642/2016. It was also a case of error in typing the date of birth in the online application. The Division Bench opined that it was not the case of the State that candidates derived any undue advantage by entering wrong date of birth in the online application. The Division Bench therefore directed the State to accept the application in spite of a wrong date of birth entered in the application. Discussion :-
8. The notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission contain a clear statement to the effect that defective applications would be rejected summarily. The applicants were required to fill up the correct details, including the age and date of birth.
9. It is a matter of record that the respondent in the respective appeals wrongly recorded their date of birth in the application. Therefore, it was a defective application. The applicants were given time till the last date of application for making corrections. However, in the subject case, the initial application through online itself was submitted only just before the last date for submission of the completed application. Therefore, it was not possible for the respondent to correct the mistake at a http://www.judis.nic.in 22/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 later point of time, within the time prescribed for submission of applications.
10. The notification issued by the TNPSC made it mandatory to fill the correct particulars. It was very clearly provided in the general instructions to the candidates that applications with incorrect particulars will be liable for rejection. Therefore, it is very clear that incorrect particulars relating to the date of birth also would result in rejection of the application.
11. The TNPSC is a body entrusted with the task of conducting recruitment for various posts. There would be large number of applications for appointment to a particular post. It would not be possible for the TNPSC to extend time for correction of mistakes. Merely because candidates were permitted to take part in the written examination, it cannot be said that the application cannot be rejected at a later point of time on account of the material defect.
12. The learned Single Judge proceeded as if the mistakes were trivial and as such, the same should be condoned. The question is not as to whether the mistake was trivial or major. It was a case of non compliance with the instruction given by the TNPSC. The candidates were required to fill up the form correctly.
The candidates were also given sufficient time to rectify the mistake. In case mistakes were not rectified even within the stipulated period, it would not be possible at a later point of time either to correct the entries or to contend that the mistakes were trivial in nature. We are therefore of the view that the learned Single Judge was not correct in allowing the Writ Petitions for the reasons mentioned in the common order.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.Jayakumar vs. A.Gopu and another, 2008(9) SCC 403, observed that calling a candidate for interview would not operate as estoppel and still his application http://www.judis.nic.in 23/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 can be rejected on the ground of material defect. The relevant observation reads thus:-
12. We are not aware of any principle of law under which once a candidate is allowed participation in the selection process, the selection authority is precluded from examining whether his application was complete, in order, within time or otherwise acceptable. A defect in the application form that renders the candidate ineligible might be overlooked in the initial screening and as a result he may be called for interview and may get a chance to take part in the selection process but that alone does not mean that the candidate cannot be held ineligible for selection at a later stage once the defect in the application comes to light.
14. The further question is as to whether we should set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in its entirety in spite of the selection of the respondent in the respective appeals for appointment to the post of Assistant.
Discretionary Jurisdiction:
15. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary in nature. It is otherwise called as equity jurisdiction. The Court is not bound to exercise the discretion in favour of a party, merely because law is in its favour. In appropriate cases, it is open to the Court to refuse relief after declaring the law on the subject. The Court can also mould the relief to do substantial justice.
16. The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra and others v. Prabhu (1994) 2 SCC 481 indicated the scope and ambit of equity jurisdiction.
5. It is the responsibility of the High Court as custodian of the Constitution to maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for sake of justice and refusing to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good.
http://www.judis.nic.in 24/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019
17. The Supreme Court in G.M.,O.N.G.C.Ltd., v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel JT 2005(7) SC 465 observed that it is not always necessary to strike down a wrong decision only because it would be lawful to do so. The Supreme Court said:
" 23. It is now well settled that the High Courts and the Supreme Court while exercising their equity jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution as also Article 136 thereof may not exercise the same in appropriate cases. While exercising such jurisdiction, the superior courts in India even may not strike down a wrong order only because it would be lawful to do so. A discretionary relief may be refused to be extended to the Appellant in a given case although the Court may find the same to be justified in law."
18. The Supreme Court in Ritesh Tewari v. State of U.P., (2010) 10 SCC 677, explained the discretionary and equity jurisdiction in the following words:
"26. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and supervisory in nature. It is not issued merely because it is lawful to do so. The extraordinary power in the writ jurisdiction does not exist to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion any substantial injustice. A writ can be issued only in case of a grave miscarriage of justice or where there has been a flagrant violation of law. The writ court has not only to protect a person from being subjected to a violation of law but also to advance justice and not to thwart it. The Constitution does not place any fetter on the power of the extraordinary jurisdiction but leaves it to the discretion of the court. However, being that the power is discretionary, the court has to balance competing interests, keeping in mind that the interests of justice and public interest coalesce generally. A court of equity, when exercising its equitable jurisdiction must act so as to prevent perpetration of a http://www.judis.nic.in 25/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 legal fraud and promote good faith and equity. An order in equity is one which is equitable to all the parties concerned. The petition can be entertained only after being fully satisfied about the factual statements and not in a casual and cavalier manner."
19. The Supreme Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Bajrangi Rabidas (2013) 12 Scale 69 held that jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India being discretionary is not to be exercised whenever there is an error of law. The Supreme Court observed:
"17. ...........It is well settled in law that jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is equitable and discretionary. The power of the High Court is required to be exercised to reach injustice wherever it is found. In Sangram Singh v. Election Commissioner, Kotah and another, (1995) 2 SCR 1, it has been observed that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not to be exercised whenever there is an error of law. The powers are purely discretionaly and though no limits can be placed upon that discretion, it must be exercised along recognized lines and not arbitrarily and one of the limitations imposed by the courts on themselves is that they will not exercise jurisdiction in such class of cases unless substantial injustice has ensued or is likely to ensue. That apart, the High court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can always take cognizance of the entire facts and circumstances and pass appropriate directions to balance the justice. The jurisdiction being extraordinary it is required to be exercised keeping in mind the principles of equity."
Conclusion:-
20. We are therefore of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for interference on account of the ultimate selection of the respondents. The respondents were given high ranking in the selection. They are entitled to an order of http://www.judis.nic.in 26/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 appointment but for the mistake in filling up the application. We are therefore of the view that this is a fit case to extend the discretionary jurisdiction to do substantial justice.
21. We therefore allow the Writ appeals filed by the TNPSC holding that the mistakes in filling up the application would result in the rejection of the applications. However, we refrain from interfering with the ultimate direction given by the learned Single Judge that TNPSC shall allot posts to the respondents taking into account their provisional selection. We direct TNPSC to operate the provisional select list and appoint the respondents in the respective posts as per their eligibility. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
22. The intra court appeals are disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.9291 and 9293 of 2019 are closed."
16. In The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs. G.Hemalatha & Another, Civil Appeal No. 6669 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.14093 of 2019), the respondent therein had underlined the answer sheet with pencil at several places in the examination. Instruction 22(1) (ii) referred to by the Tamil Nadu Public Service commission reads thus:
"Penalty for violation of Commission's instruction in the descriptive type examination.
The answer books of the applicants will be invalidated/marks deducted/debarred for violations of any one or http://www.judis.nic.in 27/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 more of the instructions, besides initiating criminal action wherever necessary.
1) Invalidation I...
II. Usage of whitener, sketch pens, pencil, colour pencils, multi-colour pens, crayons or any other writing material, for any purpose."
Accepting the arguments of the learned counsel for the Commission that the above instructions are mandatory, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraphs 12 and 13, held thus, "12. 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.
13. In view of the aforementioned, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed."
17. True that the respondent has given a declaration that the particulars furnished by him are true, correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief and in the event of any information, being found to be false or incorrect or ineligibility being detected before or after the examination at any stage, any action can be taken http://www.judis.nic.in 28/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 against him, by TNPSC, including rejection of his application. In the case on hand, the inadvertent mistake committed by him, while filling up the application is that his date of birth has been given as 23.04.1990, instead of 23.04.1991 and the date of issuance of community certificate, has been wrongly filled as 16.07.2007, instead of 16.11.2007.
18. Contention of the respondent before the Writ court is that when it came to the knowledge that he had committed an inadvertent error in the One Time Registration, through online, on 19.09.2018, he corrected the mistake and by email, dated 20.09.2018 and the appellant had also informed that the correction has been updated. According to him, he has also written a letter, dated 23.09.2018. After all these things, certificate verification has been done on 23.10.2018.
19. Contention of the respondent before the Writ court that the appellant wanted a letter, stating that there was an error, at the time of filing up of the Online application, has not been disputed. 757 regular vacancies along with 48 shortfall vacancies (45 SC, 3 ST) totalling to 805 vacant post of Assistant Horticulture Officer, have http://www.judis.nic.in 29/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 been notified. His overall rank is 340 and his communal rank is 74. The respondent is bound to succeed in the selection on his own merit and the same should not suffer, due to an inadvertent mistake. No serious prejudice would be caused to the appellant. On the other hand, the respondent would be losing his chance of securing employment.
20. Going through the material on record, we do not find any error, warranting interference. In the result, Writ Appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.K., J.) (D.K.K., J.) 26.09.2019 Index: Yes Internet: Yes kpr http://www.judis.nic.in 30/31 W.A.No.3285 of 2019 S.MANIKUMAR,J.
AND D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
kpr W.A.No.3285 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.20911 of 2019 26.09.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in 31/31