Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Candidature for Using Different Languages in Application and OMR Sheet: Union of India vs. Mahendra Singh (2022)

Date of the Judgment: July 25, 2022
Citation: Not Available in the source
Judges: Hemant Gupta, J. and Vikram Nath, J.
Can a candidate’s application be rejected for using different languages in the application form and the OMR sheet during a recruitment process? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning the recruitment of constables in the Railway Protection Force (RPF). The Court examined whether the use of different languages violated the recruitment guidelines, impacting the candidate’s eligibility. This judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, delves into the importance of adhering to prescribed procedures in application processes.

Case Background

The case involves a recruitment process for 11,952 constable positions in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), initiated through Employment Notice No. 1/2011. The selection process included a written examination, where candidates had to secure at least 35% marks (30% for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates) to qualify for the Physical Efficiency Test (PET). The application form required candidates to fill it in their own handwriting, using either Hindi or English, and to submit self-attested matriculation certificates.

The writ petitioner, belonging to the Other Backward Class category, submitted his application in English, signing it with the letters “M S”. However, he signed the self-attested documents in Hindi. During the written test on June 23, 2013, he wrote the required paragraph in Hindi on the OMR sheet, despite having filled the application form in English. He again signed as “M S” during the PET on March 7, 2014.

The appellants obtained an opinion from the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) on September 2, 2014, which stated that the signatures on the OMR sheet and the xerox copies of the certificates were made by the same person. However, the expert could not comment on the difference in language used in the OMR sheet and the application form.

Despite scoring 73.32 marks, exceeding the cut-off of 58.5 for the OBC category, the writ petitioner was not appointed. This led him to file a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad. Initially, the High Court asked the appellants to reconsider the matter, including thumb impressions and finger prints. The appellants rejected the candidature on January 27, 2017, citing the difference in language used in the application form and the OMR sheet. This decision was challenged again by the writ petitioner.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The writ petitioner initially approached the High Court of Allahabad, which on 19.10.2016, directed the appellants to reconsider the matter, including thumb impressions and finger prints. The appellants, after re-evaluation, rejected the writ petitioner’s candidature on 27.1.2017, citing the discrepancy in languages used in the application form and the OMR sheet. The writ petitioner challenged this decision again, and the learned Single Bench of the High Court set aside the rejection on 20.2.2019. The Division Bench of the High Court affirmed this order, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The legal framework for this case is primarily based on the conditions stipulated in the Employment Notice No. 1/2011, specifically:

• Para 8 Clause B: This clause specifies that application forms should be filled by candidates in their own handwriting, in Hindi or English only. It also mandates that the applications should be accompanied by a self-attested matriculation certificate as proof of educational qualification and age.
• Para 8 Clause B(e): This clause states that applications signed in capital letters/spaced-out letters will be treated as invalid. Applications with correction or overwriting or smudged thumb impression may be rejected.
• Para 9(e): This clause states that impersonation, if any, detected at any stage of the recruitment, may result in initiating criminal cases against the applicant and the impersonator as well as canceling the candidature of the applicant.

The advertisement also specifies that the language chosen in the application form should be the same as the language used in the OMR sheet. This is to ensure that the handwriting can be compared to avoid impersonation.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Union of India & Ors.):

• Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG, argued that the use of a different language in the application form than in the OMR sheet is a violation of the advertisement’s conditions and thus warrants rejection of the candidature.
• She referred to the judgment in State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. G. Hemalathaa & Anr., which held that violation of mandatory conditions in an examination process leads to invalidation of candidature.

Arguments by the Respondent (Mahendra Singh):

• Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, argued that using a different language is merely an irregularity and does not warrant rejection. He admitted that the purpose of using the same language is to avoid impersonation and to ascertain the genuineness of the candidate.
• He cited judgments in Ajay Kumar Mishra v. Union of India & Ors., Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr., and Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., to support his claim that minor irregularities should not lead to rejection of candidature.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The key issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. What is the effect of violating 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, and what is the effect of using different language in the application form than the OMR sheet?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

• State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. G. Hemalathaa & Anr. [(2020) 19 SCC 430]: The Supreme Court held that violation of mandatory conditions by a candidate disentitles them from the declaration of their result.
• Ajay Kumar Mishra v. Union of India & Ors. [2016 SCC OnLine Del 6553]: The Delhi High Court dealt with the cancellation of candidature due to incorrect information about the date of birth.
• Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. [(2016) 4 SCC 754]: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of submitting a certificate after the last date of application.
• Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. [(2016) 8 SCC 471]: The Supreme Court dealt with the suppression of material information regarding criminal cases.
• Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor [1936 SCC OnLine PC 41]: The Privy Council held that if 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.
• Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad & Ors. [(1999) 8 SCC 266]: The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner.
• Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [(2015) 13 SCC 722]: The Supreme Court held that where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of law, without deviating from the prescribed procedure.
• Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) v. Abhilash Lal & Ors. [(2020) 13 SCC 234]: The Supreme Court followed the principle that a thing must be done in a particular manner if prescribed.
• OPTO Circuit India Limited v. Axis Bank & Ors. [(2021) 6 SCC 707]: The Supreme Court followed the principle that a thing must be done in a particular manner if prescribed.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. G. Hemalathaa & Anr. [(2020) 19 SCC 430]* to emphasize that mandatory conditions must be strictly followed.
• The Supreme Court distinguished 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]* and Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. [(2016) 8 SCC 471]* as they did not concern the issue of using different languages.
• The Supreme Court applied the principle from Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor [1936 SCC OnLine PC 41]* and subsequently followed in Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad & Ors. [(1999) 8 SCC 266]*, Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [(2015) 13 SCC 722]*, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) v. Abhilash Lal & Ors. [(2020) 13 SCC 234]* and OPTO Circuit India Limited v. Axis Bank & Ors. [(2021) 6 SCC 707]* that if a procedure is prescribed, it must be followed strictly.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the recruitment process. The Court found that the language chosen by the candidate in the application form is crucial for verifying the identity of the candidate, and any deviation from this requirement would undermine the process. The Court noted that the instructions in the advertisement were clear and mandatory, and any violation of these instructions would lead to the rejection of the candidature.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The primary concern was to ensure that the person who filled out the application form was the same person who appeared for the examination.
• The requirement to use the same language in the application form and the OMR sheet was a mandatory condition, not a mere formality.
• The Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning that the difference in language was due to a time gap between filling the application form and taking the exam.
• The Court reiterated the principle that if a procedure is prescribed, it must be followed strictly.

The Court rejected the argument that the use of different language was a minor irregularity. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the rule was to maintain probity and avoid impersonation. The Court also noted that the answer sheets have to be in the language chosen by the candidate in the application form. The Court held that the High Court’s reasoning based on surmises and conjectures was not justified.

The Court quoted from the judgment in Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor:

“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.”

The Court also quoted from the judgment in Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad & Ors.:

“It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner.”

The Court further quoted from the judgment in Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.:

“Where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the same manner following the provisions of law, without deviating from the prescribed procedure.”

The Court concluded that the writ petitioner’s candidature was rightly rejected because he used different languages for filling up the application form and the OMR answer book.

Key Takeaways

• Candidates must strictly adhere to the instructions provided in recruitment advertisements.
• The language chosen in the application form must be the same as the language used in the OMR sheet to maintain the integrity of the examination process.
• Any deviation from the prescribed procedure can lead to the rejection of candidature.
• The principle that when a procedure is prescribed, it must be followed strictly, was reinforced.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court upheld the principle that if a procedure is prescribed, it must be followed strictly. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the use of different languages in the application form and the OMR sheet is a violation of the mandatory conditions of the recruitment process and warrants rejection of candidature. This case reinforces the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures in application processes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India vs. Mahendra Singh emphasizes the need for candidates to strictly adhere to the rules and procedures outlined in recruitment advertisements. The Court held that using different languages in the application form and the OMR sheet is a violation of mandatory conditions and justifies the rejection of candidature. This judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining the integrity of the recruitment process and ensuring that all candidates follow the prescribed procedures.