Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.37 seconds)The State Of Tamil Nadu vs G. Hemalathaa on 28 August, 2019
18. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel is correct in stating that
most of the judgments of this Court and Delhi High Court, while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
have condoned inadvertent errors which do not cause any prejudice to
the Commission or to other candidates and which also does not give
any unfair advantage to the applicant, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS Vs. G.HEMALATHAA
& ANR (Civil Appeal No.6669 of 2019) has observed as under:-
Taherakhatoon (D) By Lrs vs Salambin Mohammad on 26 February, 1999
8. The High Court after summoning and perusing
the answer sheet of 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 Another3 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.
Manoharmal vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 18 May, 2009
8. The High Court after summoning and perusing
the answer sheet of 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 Another3 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.
Dr. M. Vennila vs Tamil Nadu Public on 12 June, 2006
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 M. Vennila v. Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission, (2006) 3 Mad. LJ 376 (1999) 2 SCC
635 (2003) 6 SCC 545 that such exercise of discretion
should be affirmed by us, especially when such direction is
Page 17 of 20
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.4318 of 2019
and
W.A.No. of 2019
in the teeth of the Instructions which are binding on the
candidates taking the examinations.
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rohit Yadav vs Central Board Of Secondary Education ... on 24 July, 2012
6. Mr.Prasad would place reliance on a judgment of Delhi High
Court in ROHIT YADAV Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY
EDUCATION AND ORS (W.P.(C) No.4189 of 2012), dated 24/7/2012,
wherein the age of the petitioner therein had wrongly been mentioned.
Delhi High Court held that for a bona fide mistake, an applicant cannot
be penalized to the extent that the admission granted to him is
cancelled. High Court interpreted the clause in the application form
which stated that if the personal data submitted/entered by a candidate
is found to be wrong at the time of verification of certificates either
during reporting or at any later stage, the allotment of seat/provisional
admission is liable to be cancelled to mean that the word liable should
Page 7 of 20
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.4318 of 2019
and
W.A.No. of 2019
be interpreted as likely and therefore, a lenient view can be taken in
such cases. Delhi High Court went on further to state that there was no
intention on the part of the petitioner therein to mislead the respondent
or give him unfair advantage. The learned Single Judge of the Delhi
High Court found that the certificate from CBSE is a genuine document
and the petitioner cannot be debarred for filling in a column in the
application form wrongly. Mr.Prasad would state that the said judgment
applies to the present case on all force.
The Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service ... vs A. Suthanthiramoorthy on 2 March, 2020
8. Mr.Prasad would also place reliance on another Division
Bench of this Court in THE SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION, CHENNAI Vs. A.
SUTHANTHIRAMOORTHY (W.A.No.3285 of 2019), dated
26/9/2019, wherein again this Court while exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, permitted correction in
the on-line Registration form for a mistake which had been committed
inadvertently. This Court also found that since no serious prejudice
would be caused to the appellant, being the Public Service Commission,
if the mistake is permitted to be corrected, but on the other hand, the
respondent in the said writ petition would lose his chance of being
appointed in a Government post. This Court felt that in such a cases,
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised.
1