Service Law – Condition provided in the advertisement that the application has to be in the language for which the candidates want to attempt the question paper – Violation of – Effect – Writ petitioner appeared for the written test and wrote the paragraph in Hindi on the OMR sheet, though in the application form, he had written it in English – Candidature rejected – Decision set aside by Single Judge, affirmed by Division Bench – On appeal, held: The condition that language in the application form shall be used for the purposes of OMR examination is for the reason that in case any dispute arises in respect of identity of the candidate, the same can be verified from the two handwritings – Once the writ petitioner has filled the application form in English, having also signed in English, it cannot be said to be an inadvertent mistake when he has written the para in Hindi – Such writing in different language violates the instruction clearly mentioned in the advertisement – If a particular procedure in filling up the application form is prescribed, the application form should be filled up following that procedure alone – Candidature of writ petitioner rightly rejected by appellants – Order of High Court set aside. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The condition that language in the application form shall be used for the purposes of OMR examination is for the reason that in case any dispute arises in respect of identity of the candidate, the same can be verified from the two handwritings. The sole reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High Court of time gap between the filling up of the application form and the examination, and hence inadvertent filling up of OMR sheet in Hindi by the writ petitioner is based on surmises and conjectures. Once the writ petitioner has filled the application form in English, having also signed in English, it cannot be said to be an inadvertent mistake when he has written the para in Hindi. Such writing in different language violates the instruction clearly mentioned in the advertisement. The language chosen is relevant to ensure that the candidate who has filled up the application form alone appears in the written examination to maintain probity. The answer sheets have to be in the language chosen by the candidate in the application form. If a particular procedure in filling up the application form is prescribed, the application form should be filled up following that procedure alone. Since the advertisement contemplated the manner of filling up of the application form and also the attempting of the answer sheets, it has to be done in the manner so prescribed. Since the writ petitioner has used different language for filling up of the application form and the OMR answer book, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected by the appellants. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. [Paras 12-14, 17-19][1008-D-E, F-G; 1009-A-B; 1010-A-C]
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. G. Hemalathaa & Anr. (2020) 19 SCC 430; Ajay Kumar Mishra v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) SCC OnLine Del 6553; Ram
Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. (2016) 4 SCC 754; Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445 - distinguished.
Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad & Ors. (1999)
8 SCC 266 : [1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 754; Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2015) 13 SCC 722 : [2014] 6 SCR 750; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) v. Abhilash Lal & Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 234 : [2019] 14 SCR 659; OPTO Circuit India Limited v. Axis Bank & Ors. (2021)
6 SCC 707 – relied on.
Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor (1936) SCC OnLine PC
41 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.