Judicial Examination: Any violation of examination instructions result in rejection of candidature; SC.- 20:00
Supreme Court of India
Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta
In the present case, 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 SC [ THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. v. G. HEMALATHAA & ANR. ] while setting aside the judgment of the HC holds that 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. That such exercise of discretion cannot be affirmed , especially when such direction is in the teeth of the Instructions which are binding on the candidates taking the examinations.
In the present case, the Respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court for a direction to declare her result and appoint her as a Civil Judge. The HC 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. Inspite of that, the Writ petition filed by the Respondent was allowed - which judgment was set aside by the SC.