Read Time: 05 minutes
There could be several other candidates, who have committed irregularities in answering the examination and the gates would be opened for them to now approach for consideration, court opined
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a differently-abled candidate challenging the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission’s (TNPSC) decision to reject his answer sheet for the Group-IV Combined Civil Services Examination due to a missing signature or thumb impression.
The bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan held that the TNPSC’s examination guidelines, which mandate candidates to sign or affix a thumb impression on the OMR sheet, are binding and cannot be relaxed for an individual case.
The court emphasized that altering examination rules for a single candidate would set an unwarranted precedent, potentially leading to similar claims from other disqualified candidates.
"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," said the bench.
The petitioner, A. Mohamed Ibrahim, appeared for the Group-IV examination held on June 9, 2024, under the differently-abled category, with a scribe assisting him. Despite completing the test successfully, his answer sheet was rejected because he neither signed nor affixed a thumb impression as required.
Ibrahim, who suffered significant physical disabilities following a major accident, argued that his condition impaired his ability to sign. His disability had been assessed at over 60%, and he had been issued a certificate by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities. He contended that since he had used a scribe, his inability to sign should not have disqualified him.
Court, however, observed that TNPSC rules provided clear alternatives for candidates unable to sign, including affixing either a left or right thumb impression. Additionally, candidates who were completely unable to use both hands were explicitly permitted to leave the signature and thumb impression columns blank.
Since Ibrahim had not claimed complete immobility of both hands in his petition, the court held that he was required to follow the prescribed procedure. "Rules cannot be changed for one particular candidate who omitted to affix his signature," the judgment stated, noting that allowing an exception would create complications for future exams.
Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Ran Vijay Singh & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018), which underscored the importance of strictly adhering to examination regulations to ensure fairness. The judgment reiterated that courts should not interfere with examination processes unless clear legal violations are evident.
The high court concluded that TNPSC's rules were mandatory and that the court had no power to relax them under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed without costs.
Case Title: A.Mohamed Ibrahim vs Secretary The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Please Login or Register
