Non-Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.6669 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.14093 of 2019)

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. .... Appellant(s)

Versus

G. HEMALATHAA & ANR.  …. Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.  

1. The Respondent is an Advocate enrolled in the Bar

Council  of  Tamil  Nadu.    The  Tamil  Nadu  Public  Service

Commission  (for  short,  ‘the  Commission’)  issued  a

Notification  dated  09.04.2018  inviting  applications  from

eligible candidates for filling up 320 vacancies to the posts

of Civil Judges in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service. The

Respondent was successful in the preliminary examination

conducted on 09.06.2018.  The written test was conducted

on 11th and 12th August, 2018.  Results of the written test

were  announced  on  19.09.2018  and  the  name  of  the

1

Respondent  did  not  appear  in  the  list  of  successful

candidates.  Interviews were conducted from 27.09.2018

to  05.10.2018  and  the  final  results  of  successful

candidates  were  published  on  05.12.2018.   The

Respondent  came  to  know  that  another  candidate

belonging to the same community to which she belongs

(Most  Backward  Class)  was  selected  in  spite  of  her

performance not being satisfactory.  The Respondent made

a representation to the Commission to furnish her marks in

the written examination.  On 07.01.2019, the Commission

conveyed to the Respondent that her Law Paper 1 written

examination  was  invalidated  in  view  of  violation  of  the

Instructions to Applicants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Instructions’) issued by the Commission.  

2. The Respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court

for a direction to declare her result and appoint her as a

Civil Judge, provided she has secured more marks than the

last  selected  candidate  in  the  Most  Backward  Class

category.    The  High  Court  directed  the  Commission  to

announce the results of the Respondent in Law Paper-1 of

the main written examination.  If she was found qualified,

the Commission was directed to conduct the interview of

2

the Respondent as a special case.  The Commission was

further  directed to  complete  the exercise  and announce

the final result of the Respondent within a period of four

weeks from the date of the judgment.   Being dissatisfied

with the said judgment of the High Court, this appeal is

filed.  

3. The  Respondent  contended  before  the  High  Court

that she did not violate any of the conditions stipulated by

the  Commission.   She  complained  that  the  Commission

wrongfully invalidated her Law Paper-1.   The High Court

summoned  the  answer  sheets  and  found  that  the

Respondent had underlined the answer sheet with pencil

at several places in Law Paper-1. The High Court was also

of the opinion that such marking was in clear violation of

Instruction  22  (1)(II)  of  the  Instructions  issued  by  the

Commission which prohibits candidates from using a pencil

for any purpose.  Instruction 22 (1) (II) provides that:

“  Penalty for violation of Commission’s instruction in the descriptive type examination. The  answer  books  of  the  applicants  will  be invalidated / marks deducted / debarred for violations of  any  one  or  more  of  the  instructions,  besides initiating criminal action wherever necessary. 1) Invalidation

3

I. ... II.  Usage  of  whitener,  sketch  pens,  pencil,  colour pencils,  multi-colour  pens,  Crayons  or  any  other writing materials, for any purpose.”

4. When the  Respondent  was  confronted  by  the  High

Court by showing the answer sheet, she submitted that it

may  have  been  done  inadvertently  and  due  to  anxiety.

The Respondent pleaded for  leniency and prayed that a

direction may be given to the Commission to declare her

as having been successful in the main examination.   The

High  Court  accepted  the  submission  of  the  Respondent

that the underlining of some portions of the answer sheet

in pencil was done unwittingly and inadvertently and that

she did not gain any advantage from such marking.  Being

of the view that the Respondent cannot be disqualified for

a mistake committed inadvertently, the High Court allowed

the Writ Petition.  

5. Mr. R. Venkatramani, learned Senior Counsel for the

Appellant  submitted  that  the  Instructions  given  to

candidates taking examinations for selection to the post of

Civil Judges clearly bars the candidates from using a pencil

in any manner.  The Instructions given to the candidates

4

are mandatory and cannot be relaxed.  Mr. Venkatramani

contended that the initial stand taken by the Respondent

that  she did  not  use the pencil  disentitles  her  from the

relief sought for.   No lenient view can be taken in cases of

violation  of  the  mandatory  Instructions  as  the  order  in

favour of the Respondent will be treated as a precedent.

If the Respondent is given the relief sought for the other

candidates who have been disqualified will also claim the

same relief.   

6. Ms. V. Mohana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the  Respondent  vehemently  argued  that  we  should  not

exercise  our  discretion  under  Article  136  of  the

Constitution  of  India.   According  to  her,  there  is  no

substantial  question  of  law  in  the  S.L.P.  warranting  our

interference.  She submitted that an error was committed

by the Respondent which was rightly condoned by the High

Court.  She made a fervent appeal to us that the career of

a  meritorious  backward  class  candidate  should  not  be

nipped at the bud.   

7. We  have  given  our  anxious  consideration  to  the

submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the

Respondent.   The Instructions issued by the Commission

5

are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to

be strictly complied with.  Strict adherence to the terms

and  conditions  of  the  Instructions  is  of  paramount

importance.   The High Court in exercise of powers under

Article  226  of  the  Constitution  cannot  modify/relax  the

Instructions issued by the Commission1.     

8. The High  Court  after  summoning and perusing  the

answer sheet of the Respondent was convinced that there

was  infraction  of  the  Instructions.    However,  the  High

Court  granted  the  relief  to  the  Respondent  on  a

sympathetic consideration on humanitarian ground.  The

judgments  cited  by  the  learned  Senior  Counsel  for  the

Respondent in Taherakhatoon (D) By LRs v. Salambin

Mohammad2 and Chandra Singh and Others v. State

of Rajasthan and Another3  in support of her arguments

that we should not entertain this appeal in the absence of

any substantial questions of law are not applicable to the

facts of this case.   

9. In spite of the finding that there was no adherence to

the Instructions, the High Court granted the relief, ignoring

the mandatory nature of the Instructions.  It cannot be said 1 M. Vennila v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, (2006) 3 Mad. LJ 376 2 (1999) 2 SCC 635 3 (2003) 6 SCC 545

6

that such exercise of discretion should be affirmed by us,

especially  when  such  direction  is  in  the  teeth  of  the

Instructions which are binding on the candidates taking the

examinations.   

10. In  her  persuasive  appeal,  Ms.  Mohana  sought  to

persuade us to dismiss the appeal which would enable the

Respondent to compete in the selection to the post of Civil

Judge. It is a well-known adage that, hard cases make bad

law.  In  Umesh  Chandra  Shukla  v.  Union  of  India4,

Venkataramiah, J., held that:

“13…. exercise  of  such power of  moderation is likely to create a feeling of distrust in the process of  selection  to  public  appointments  which  is intended  to  be  fair  and  impartial.  It  may  also result in the violation of the principle of equality and may lead to arbitrariness. The cases pointed out by the High Court are no doubt hard cases, but hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law. In the circumstances, we lean in favour of a strict construction of the Rules and hold that the High Court had no such power under the Rules.   

11. Roberts,  CJ.  in  Caperton  v.  A.T.  Massey5 held

that:

4 (1985) 3 SCC 721 5 556 U.S. 868 (2009)

7

“Extreme  cases  often  test  the  bounds  of established legal principles.  There is a cost to yielding  to  the  desire  to  correct  the  extreme case,  rather  than  adhering  to  the  legal principle.  That cost has been demonstrated so often  that  it  is  captured in  a  legal  aphorism: “Hard cases make bad law.”   

12. After giving a thoughtful consideration, we are afraid

that we cannot approve the judgment of the High Court as

any order in favour of the candidate who has violated the

mandatory Instructions would be laying down bad law.  The

other submission made by Ms. Mohana that an order can

be  passed  by  us  under  Article  142  of  the  Constitution

which shall  not be treated as a precedent also does not

appeal to us.

13. In view of the aforementioned, the judgment of the

High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.    

   ...............................J.                                                              [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

…...........................J.                                                                   [HEMANT GUPTA]

New Delhi, August 28, 2019  

8