Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2019 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1859 - SC - Indian LawsAppointment in the post of Civil Judge - Seeking 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 - Respondent contended before the High Court that she did not violate any of the conditions stipulated by the Commission - relief granted on humanitarian ground - HELD THAT:- The Instructions issued by the Commission 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 Commission as held in M. Vennila v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission [2006 (6) TMI 538 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]. 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. VERSUS SALAMBIN MOHAMMAD [1999 (2) TMI 679 - SUPREME COURT] and CHANDRA SINGH VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN [2003 (7) TMI 692 - SUPREME COURT] 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. 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 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. 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 respondent 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. Appeal allowed.
|