BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11/07/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.1476 of 2007 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2007 R.Sulekha Priyadarsiny .. Petitioner Vs. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, rep.by the Under Secretary, Office of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondent PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records, relating to the order of the respondent Memorandum 616/CESE/APD- C2/2006, dated 12.02.2007 which was communicated to the petitioner on 17.02.2007 and quash the same and direct the respondent to treat the petitioner's application as in order for direct recruitment to the posts under combined Engineering Service Examination 2006. !For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Sitharanjandas ^For Respondent ... Mrs.V.Chellammal, Special Government Pleader. :ORDER
The petitioner is an applicant for the post in the Combined Engineering
Service Examination-2006. Her application was rejected by the Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission the respondent herein on the ground that the application
dated 25.12.2006 was incomplete. The candidate had not signed in the
Application/Declaration form. The order of rejection containing the memo of the
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, dated 12.02.2007 is under challenge in the
writ petition.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client was
confused as to how the said application form to be filled. Therefore, she did
not put her signature in the declaration which is the last requirement in any
application. It is a very significant column that has to be filled up by all
candidates. The non filling of that column cannot make the application complete.
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission cannot be found fault with, if it
rejects at the threshold a defective application submitted by a candidate. The
explanation is given that the column given as a box item adjacent to the
declaration states that it is for office use only and therefore, there was a
confusion. The averment is only stated to be rejected. Even a bare look at the
application form will show that the words found as “office use only” are given
in a separate box and the declaration is given in another box. The contents of
the declaration is given both in Tamil and English will show that any person who
is familiar with either of the language will understand that he or she had to
sign that declaration mandatorily. Further at the bottom of the declaration, the
candidate’s signature is required. Therefore, the petitioner cannot feign any
ignorance about non filling of the said column. Infact that is a crucial part in
any application form.
3.An identical question came up for consideration before a Division Bench
of this Court in Dr.M.Vennila Vs.Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission reported
in 2006 (3) CTC 449. The said judgment also came to be followed by a subsequent
Division Bench (to which I am a party) in Dr.A.Rajapandian Vs.State of Tamil
Nadu reported in 2006 (5) CTC 529. In Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the second
judgment, the Division Bench had observed as follows:
“11.In Dr.M.Vennila’s case, the Division Bench has held as follows:
“In addition to the same, all the candidates were supplied specimen
application form duly filled up. A perusal of the filled in specimen form makes
it clear that where and in how many places the applicant has to sign. Apart from
this, we also verified all the columns in the application form. We are
satisfied that the language used and the columns given in the application form
are very clear and there is no ambiguity in the columns of application regarding
the places where the applicant has to subscribe his/her signature.”
“As rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate General, the insistence
upon signature under each and every page has its own significance. Signature
connotes the authenticity of the person who certifies as well as the accuracy
and correctness of the particulars provided and furnished by him. In such
circumstances, we are of the view that non-signing by the applicants at page 2
of the application form has rendered the particulars furnished by them
unauthenticated and the application could not be considered as a valid
application. The respondent is fully justified in arriving at a conclusion that
the particulars furnished by the petitioners without signature are construed as
being not authenticated.”
“As rightly pointed out, the filled in application must be in order and
intact in all aspects and before filling up the application form, the applicants
are supposed to go through the notification, instructions, etc., to candidates,
information brochure and OMR application form property in order to ensure that
the particulars and information which are required to be furnished are duly
furnished and to see that the documents are enclosed along with the application
form as per requirements.”
12.We have gone through the said judgment and we think there is no scope for the
petitioners in this batch to convince us to take a different view.”
4.In the light of the binding precedents of the two Division Bench
judgments, the writ petition is misconceived. Hence, the same is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007 is also dismissed.
sms
To
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
rep.by the Under Secretary,
Office of the Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission,
Chennai – 600 002.