Supreme Court Upholds Constable Rejection Over Language Discrepancy

The Supreme Court upheld the rejection of the respondent's candidature for the post of Constable in the Railway Protection Force due to using different languages in the application form and OMR sheet, contravening the advertisement's language consistency requirement. The Court emphasized the necessity of strict adherence to prescribed procedures to ensure the integrity of the selection process. The judgment of the High Court was overturned, and the respondent's writ petition was dismissed, affirming the importance of following specified procedures in recruitment processes for fairness and transparency.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the rejection of the respondent's candidature based on the use of different languages in the application form and OMR sheet.
2. Examination of the effect of violating the condition provided in the advertisement regarding the language used in the application form and OMR sheet.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Rejection Based on Different Languages:
The central issue in this case was the rejection of the respondent's candidature for the post of Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) due to the use of different languages in the application form and the OMR sheet. The respondent filled the application form in English but wrote in Hindi on the OMR sheet during the written examination. The appellants argued that this discrepancy violated the instructions provided in the advertisement, which mandated the use of the same language in both documents to ensure the identity of the candidate and prevent impersonation.

The High Court initially quashed the rejection, stating that the discrepancy was an inadvertent mistake due to the time gap between filling the application form and taking the examination. However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning speculative and unsupported by evidence.

2. Effect of Violating Advertisement Conditions:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedure in filling out the application form and attempting the answer sheets. The Court cited several precedents, including Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad, and Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, which established that when a statute or advertisement prescribes a particular procedure, it must be followed strictly.

The Court noted that the purpose of requiring the same language in the application form and the OMR sheet was to facilitate the verification of the candidate's identity in case of any dispute. The use of different languages undermined this verification process and violated the clear instructions provided in the advertisement.

The respondent's argument that the use of different languages was a mere irregularity and not a mandatory requirement was rejected. The Court held that the language requirement was crucial to maintaining the integrity of the selection process and ensuring that the same person who filled out the application form appeared for the examination.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent's candidature was rightly rejected due to the violation of the language requirement. The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed, thereby allowing the appeal. The Court reinforced the principle that adherence to prescribed procedures in application processes is essential for maintaining fairness and integrity in public recruitment.

---