"Would Change Rules Of Game": Madras HC Rejects Plea By Disabled Candidate Who Failed To Sign Answer Sheet Of Civil Services Exam

Justice CV Karthikeyan observed that the commission had provided clear instructions to the candidates and in such cases, the court, exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, could not modify or relax the conditions. The court added that "acceding" to the request of the candidate would be far exceeding the scope of the examination and changing the rules of the game.

“The submissions made by the learned counsel across the bar is appreciated, but acceding to the same would be far exceeding the scope of examination and changing the rules of the game. The instructions very specifically stipulate various options, instead of affixing the signature to at least affix either one thumb impressions, if both are not possible,” the court said.

The court further underscored that the rules could not be changed for a "particular candidate who had omitted to affix the signature". The court remarked that a different approach could not be taken as there would be other candidates who would have committed irregularities in answering the examination and allowing the plea would open gates for them to approach the court for consideration.

The court was hearing a petition by Mohammed Ibrahim seeking to quash his result and to evaluate his OMR sheet, permitting him to participate in the certificate verification and to appoint him for suitable posts.

The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission had conducted an examination for the Combined Civil Services Examination – IV (Group IV Services). Ibrahim had appeared for the exam and sought reservation under the category of a differently abled person. It was submitted that he had met with a major accident while in college and had sustained multiple injuries restricting the movement of his right hand, and left leg and impairing his eyes. His disability was assessed at 60% by the Department of Empowerment of Persons. The Regional Medical Board confirmed his disability at 62%.

The court was informed that Ibrahim was allotted a scribe and a separate room. After completing the exam, the scribe handed over the answer sheet to the invigilator. However, since Ibrahim had not affixed his signature in the relevant portion required, his paper was not evaluated.

Ibrahim's counsel urged the court to direct the examination of his paper by taking a lenient approach. It was submitted that even if the signature is not available, the answer sheet could be called for and compared with the registration number to determine its authenticity.

The Controller of Examination, by way of a counter affidavit, submitted that the instructions clearly provided that the answer sheets should be signed by the candidates. It was submitted that as per instructions, if a candidate was unable to affix the signature, either left thumb impression or right thumb impression could be affixed.

The court noted that Clause 4.10 of the instruction provided that if a candidate was unable to use both hands and has been permitted to use scribe, he/she may leave the signature and thumb impression column blank. In the present case however, the candidate had stated that he suffered paralysis in his right hand and had not specifically stated that both his hands were paralysed.

Thus, noting that the instructions of the Commission were mandatory, the court noted that it could not grant the relief sought for and dismissed the plea.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. R. Sivakumar

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. G. Hema, Standing Counsel

Case Title: Mohammed Ibrahim v. The Secretary, TNPSC and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 112

Case No: W.P.No.33691 of 2024