Quashing a condition in two office orders of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC), the Madras High Court has held that consideration of an incomplete application of a reservation category candidate under the unreserved category is illegal.
The court said the two orders were against Article14 (right to equality before law) and other provisions of the Constitution and were operating against public policy and welfare.
Originally, E. Bamila belonging to the Kerala Mudali Community, classified as a Backward Caste (BC), applied for the combined engineering services examination pursuant to the Commission's notification of July 14, 2010. She took the written test. When she appeared for the oral test in August last year, she came to know that she had been called under the ‘Other Communities' category instead of BC on the ground that she had not enclosed her community certificate along with the OMR sheet. She sent a representation enclosing a copy of the community certificate issued by the Agastheeswaram Tahsildar, Kanyakumari district. Her mark statement was also published in the general category. She sent a representation again to consider her candidature under BC quota. That was not considered. She filed a writ petition. It was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.
In its judgment, a Division Bench consisting of Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and M.Venugopal said in the candidate's original OMR application, the column meant for quoting the candidate's community, had been shaded black stating that she belonged to BC, but in the column meant for enclosures, the community certificate had not been shaded. It indicated that the candidate had not enclosed the community certificate.
The Bench cited an earlier judgment of the High Court which held that instructions to candidates published in the notification should be followed scrupulously by the candidates and the Commission.
The July 2010 notification mandated that applications received without attested copies of certificates would be summarily rejected. So, the candidate's application should have been rejected. But, she had been permitted to write the exam treating her as a general candidate. For this, the Commission relied on two office orders of November 7, 2006. While order No.59 stated that in case the community column was not shaded and no supporting documents were sent, the candidate would be treated as OC candidate.
Order No.60 said if the candidate claimed to have sent document copies, but the copies were not found with the application, the documents should be called for from the candidate by registered post with acknowledgement due within 15 days from the date of issue.
If it was not received within the stipulated time or received defectively or issued by any authority after the date of receipt of the application, the application should be rejected or the claimed benefit denied. In the present case, this order was not invoked.
Mr.Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and Venugopal said when the notification also mandated that incomplete or defective applications should be rejected summarily, further exercise under the two office orders was nothing but a wasteful one, since they permitted an unqualified candidate to take the examination. They were also not going to achieve any purpose. It would drive the Commission to an unnecessary litigation, as in the present case.
The condition no.3 (b) of the office orders was against the interests of genuine candidates and hence being set aside.
