No Wrong In Disqualifying Candidate For Not Using Prescribed Language In OMR Sheet : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court upheld rejection of candidature of a candidate who used different language in the application form than the OMR sheet.

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, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath observed.

In this case, the candidate filled up his application form in English and his signatures are in English consisting of two letters "M" and "S". He appeared for the written test on 23.6.2013 where he wrote the paragraph in Hindi on the OMR sheet. His candidature was rejected on the ground 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. Allowing his writ petition, the High Court observed that as the application form had been filled up in the year 2011 whereas the examination took place in the year 2013, therefore, he had filled up the OMR sheet in Hindi inadvertently on account of time gap between the filling up of the application form and the examination.

Before the Apex court, the issues raised was regarding the 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, and what is the effect of using different language in the application form than the OMR sheet.

ASG Madhavi Divan, who appeared for the appellant contended that the use of different language in the application form than what is used in the OMR sheet by itself entails rejection of the candidature. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for the respondent-candidate submitted that use of a different language is only an irregularity. Since this condition is not followed by any consequence , it cannot be said to be mandatory is not tenable, it was argued.

The court observed that 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. Such writing in different language violates the instruction clearly mentioned in the advertisement, the bench noted. The court further observed:

"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 8 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 v. King Emperor  , 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."

While setting aside the High Court order, the bench further said:

"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."

Case details

Union of India vs Mahendra Singh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 630 | CA 4807 OF 2022 | 25 July 2022 | Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath

Headnotes

Public Employment - Examinations - 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 - Candidate used different language for filling up of the application form and the OMR answer book, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected. (Para 14-18)

Practice and Procedure - 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 - Referred to Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 (II), Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad  (1999) 8 SCC 266 , Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors (2015) 13 SCC 722. (Para 14-17)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment