2022 (7) TMI 1383 - SC - Indian Laws

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 ... Effect of violation of the condition provided in the advertisement that the application has to be in the language for which the candidates want to attempt the question paper - what is the effect of using different language in the application form than the OMR sheet? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, more than 11,000 posts were advertised for filling up of the posts of Constables in the RPF. Though the number of candidates who appeared in response to such advertisement is not available, but generally, it is a matter of common experience that candidates much more than the posts advertised are the aspirants for such posts. 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. Still further, the question papers are required to be set up in the languages other than Hindi and English as well. The applications in different languages were to be sent to different Nodal Officers in Gorakhpur, Kolkata, Bhubaneshwar and Chennai. Still further, the OMR answer sheet is bilingual, in Hindi and English, but it would be in some other language if a candidate has chosen a language other than English or Hindi. The answer sheets have to be in the language chosen by the candidate in the application form. It is well settled that if a particular procedure in filling up the application form is prescribed, the application form should be filled up following that procedure alone. This was enunciated by Privy Council in the NAZIR AHMAD VERSUS KING EMPEROR (NO. 2) [1936 (6) TMI 11 - PRIVY COUNCIL], wherein it was held that that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. Similarly, this Court in MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI (MCGM) VERSUS ABHILASH LAL & ORS. [2019 (11) TMI 844 - SUPREME COURT] and OPTO CIRCUIT INDIA LTD. VERSUS AXIS BANK & OTHERS [2021 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT] has followed the said principle. 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. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High Court that on account of lapse of time, the writ petitioner might have attempted the answer sheet in a different language is not justified as the use of different language itself disentitles the writ petitioner from any indulgence in exercise of the power of judicial review. 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 cannot be sustained in law, the same is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. 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.