1

Case relating to rejection of application:

Parties : B. Meera Versus The Controller of Examinations, Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission

Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras

Case No : Writ Appeal No.688 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008

Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA & THE HONOURABLE MR.
JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN

Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner : K.M. Vijayan, Senior Counsel, K. Premkumar,
Advocate. For the Respondent: C.N.G. Ezhilarasi, Advocate.

Date of Judgment :

21-10-2008 Head

Note :-

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Candidature rejected by the TNPSC by a letter dated
12.2.2007 on the ground that "the candidate has not signed in the Application/Declaration"
-The signature of an applicant shown below Column No.24 in the Declaration (at the rear
page), has nothing to do with Column No.24, as it is the only place for putting the signature
by the candidate on the application form - The rest of the two places for signatures (one at the
front page) and the other on the rear page near the "Declaration", are to be signed by the
applicant on both the sides of the Hall Ticket (Admit Card), which are to be taken out of the
application form and once they are taken out, in the absence of any signature on the
application form (i.e. below Column No.24), it is not possible for the TNPSC to find out as to
whether such application form has been filled up by the candidate himself/herself - In the
case of "Dr. A. Rajapandian vs. State of Tamil Nadu" reported in 2006 (5) C.T.C. 529, similar
matter fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. The candidate having
omitted to sign the application form and declaration column, his candidature was rejected.
The Division Bench of this Court held that non-signing of the application form rendered the
particulars furnished un-authenticated and the application form cannot be considered as a
valid one. The present case of the appellant-writ petitioner having been covered by the
decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2006 (5) C.T.C. 529 (supra), find no
ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge.

Para 9 to 12

Cases Referred:

Dr. A. Rajapandian vs. State of Tamil Nadu" reported in 2006 (5) C.T.C. 529 (Relied)

Judgment :-
 2

(Prayer: Writ Appeal against the order of the single Judge of this Court, dated 3.10.2007 in
Writ Petition No.6299 of 2007.)

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

The appellant (writ petitioner) appeared in the Combined Engineering Services Examination
conducted by the respondent-Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short, 'the TNPSC')
for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineers. In the said Examination, though she was
shown successful, her candidature was rejected by the TNPSC by a letter dated 12.2.2007 on
the ground that "the candidate has not signed in the Application/Declaration". The writ
petitioner challenged the said letter dated 12.2.2007 unsuccessfully before the Writ Court,
giving rise to the present Writ Appeal.

2. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner, the
Application Form No.AC356038, submitted by the writ petitioner was properly filled up.
Column No.24 in the said application form, being not applicable to the case of the writ
petitioner, she had not filled up nor signed the said Column No.24, as per the instructions of
the TNPSC. It was submitted that the writ petitioner having acted as per the instructions of
the TNPSC, now the respondent-TNPSC cannot take advantage of their mistake to disqualify
her.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-TNPSC submitted that number of

candidates were disqualified on the same ground and the writ petitions preferred by them had
been dismissed, which has also been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. According
to the respondent, as per the instructions/format, it is very clear the candidate must sign in
the application form at the three places, viz., (i) at the bottom of the photograph of the first
page, (ii) at the end of the application form at the second page (rear side) and (iii) below the
declaration. But in the instant case, the appellant/writ petitioner has signed only in two
places, viz., one at the bottom of the photograph of the first page and another, below the
declaration at the rear page of the application form, but she has not signed the application
form below Column No.24. In a case like this, where an application form was not signed by
the candidate at the relevant place, no relief could be granted to the appellant-writ petitioner.

4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.

5. Both the parties produced a photo-stat copy of the original application form, including the
copy of the instructions produced by the counsel for the respondent-TNPSC.

6. On a perusal of the photo-stat copy of the original application form and the instructions of
the TNPSC, it will be evident that the application form is in two pages printed on both sides.
In the bottom portion of both the sides, i.e. near the cut-off line in the front page and near the
Declaration at the rear page, the candidates have been informed "Do fold here". The said
 3

bottom portion is the Hall Ticket (Admit Card) to be torn and taken out by the TNPSC for
forwarding the same to the candidates. The rest part (upper portion of the form) is the
application, which remains with the TNPSC. In the front page of the bottom portion, which is
part of the Hall Ticket (Admit Card), the applicant is supposed to sign and the appellant-writ
petitioner has signed therein. In the rear page bottom portion (of the Hall Ticket), the
applicant is supposed to put his signature, which the appellant-writ petitioner, has signed
therein. In the box below Column No.24 at the rear page (relating to the particulars of
previous employment, previous appearance of oral test, etc.), there appears to be a place for
signature of the applicant. Admittedly, the applicant (appellant-writ petitioner) has not
signed therein, which is the ground taken by the TNPSC for rejecting her candidature and the
said ground has been accepted by the learned single Judge.

7. In the instructions supplied by the TNPSC to the candidates at paragraph 17, the following
stipulation has been made:

"17. Application must reach the Controller of Examinations on or before the prescribed date.
Applications received after that date of applications which are not signed or applications
which are not in the proper form or which are not correctly and completely filled or in respect
of which the prescribed certificates and documents are not received on or before that date
and application which do not otherwise fulfil the terms of these instructions and the
"Notification/Advertisement" will be considered defective and will be summarily rejected.

The filling in of the application form correctly and completely and sending with it all the
documents as required in the Commission's "Notification/Advertisement" and "Instructions,
etc., to Candidates" form part of the test for selection. Failure in this regard will entail
summary rejection of the application."

From the aforesaid instructions, it will be evident that if the application is not signed or is not
in proper form, the candidates were informed that their candidature will be rejected.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner relied on the instructions
supplied by the TNPSC to the candidates, with regard to Column No.24, to suggest that the
said Column is required to be filled up only if the candidates were supposed to give particulars
of previous/present employment and the previous appearance for Oral Test.

9. We are of the view that the signature of an applicant shown below Column No.24 in the
Declaration (at the rear page), has nothing to do with Column No.24, as it is the only place for
putting the signature by the candidate on the application form.

10. We have noticed that the rest of the two places for signatures (one at the front page) and
the other on the rear page near the "Declaration", are to be signed by the applicant on both
the sides of the Hall Ticket (Admit Card), which are to be taken out of the application form and
 4

once they are taken out, in the absence of any signature on the application form (i.e. below
Column No.24), it is not possible for the TNPSC to find out as to whether such application form
has been filled up by the candidate himself/herself.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-TNPSC has brought to the notice of the
Court an example of one R.Anjana Rekha, who applied for the Tamil Nadu Medical Services
Examination. In her application form, she has put two signatures, one at the bottom of the
front page, i.e. below the Hall Ticket (Admit Card) and the other in the rear page at the
bottom, i.e. rear portion of the Hall Ticket (Admit Card). Like the present appellant-writ
petitioner, she has also not put the signature on the application form below Column No.24.
Her case was also rejected, but she was not granted relief by the Court.

12. In the case of "Dr. A. Rajapandian vs. State of Tamil Nadu" reported in 2006 (5) C.T.C.
529, similar matter fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court. The candidate
having omitted to sign the application form and declaration column, his candidature was
rejected. The Division Bench of this Court held that non-signing of the application form
rendered the particulars furnished un-authenticated and the application form cannot be
considered as a valid one. The present case of the appellant-writ petitioner having been
covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2006 (5) C.T.C. 529
(supra), we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single
Judge.

13. There being no merits, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances of
the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.