Summary
In an RPF constable recruitment, the candidate filled in his application form and signed it in English, but wrote the required paragraph on the OMR answer sheet in Hindi. His candidature was rejected. The High Court set the rejection aside, treating the change of language as an inadvertent mistake caused by the time gap between application and examination, and finding no proof of impersonation. The Supreme Court restored the rejection. The requirement to use the same language was meant to allow handwriting to be compared and impersonation detected in a very large recruitment, so it had to be followed. Where the procedure for applying is prescribed, it must be followed in that manner alone. The High Court's reasoning rested on surmise, and a candidate who breached the condition was not entitled to relief in judicial review.
Issues
- Whether a candidate who filled in the application form in one language but wrote the OMR answer-sheet paragraph in another, contrary to the advertisement's instructions, could have his candidature rejected even though impersonation was not proved.
Held
- The precedents cited by both sides (G. Hemalathaa, Ajay Kumar Mishra, Ram Kumar Gijroya and Avtar Singh) turned on their own facts and did not decide this issue. (¶ 11)
- Requiring the same language in the application form and on the OMR sheet allows handwriting to be compared if the candidate's identity is disputed. It is important in a recruitment for more than 11,000 posts with papers set in several languages, and it protects the probity of the examination. (¶¶ 12, 14)
- The High Court's view that the candidate used Hindi inadvertently because of the gap between application and examination was based on surmise. Having filled in and signed the form in English, his writing in Hindi was a clear breach of the instructions in the advertisement. (¶ 13)
- Where a particular procedure is prescribed for doing something, it must be done in that manner or not at all (Nazir Ahmad, Chandra Kishore Jha and Cherukuri Mani). Using a different language therefore disentitled the candidate to relief in judicial review, even though the condition did not state its consequence, and his candidature was rightly rejected. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's order was set aside and the writ petition dismissed, so the rejection of the respondent's candidature stands.