News By/Courtesy: Ojaswi Gupta | 01 Sep 2019 1:06am IST

HIGHLIGHTS

  • Hard cases make bad laws.High Courts cannot relax/modify these instructions
  • Use of pencil coasted a chance to become a judge.
  • Instructions issued by any Public Service Commissions to the candidates are mandatory/ obligatory

 It is always the small details that matters the most. Use of pencil coasted a chance to become a judge. G. Hemalathaa, an advocate, applied to the post of civil judge in Tamil Nadu State Judicial Services. The commission specifically prohibits candidates for use of lead pencil for any given purpose. Facts of the present case bring out that while participating in the written test conducted by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission she used pencil for underlining at various places in law paper-I. Commission, in accordance with their established rules/law, disqualified her.

The Hon’ble High Court being lenient in regard with the aforementioned petition, grants her writ petition adjudicating that the underlining of some portion of the answer sheet which court believe was not done wittingly and that she had not fetched any benefit out of such marking.

Aggrieved by the decision held by the Hon’ble High Court, a state filled an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Mr. L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Mr. Hemant Gupta. The Hon’ble court in the present case 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 is of paramount importance. The High Court in the exercise of powers under article 226 of the constitution cannot modify/relax the instructions issued by the Commission.

The bench even refused to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution of India while observing, it cannot approve the judgment of the High Court as any order in favor of any candidate who violated the obligatory instruction would be laying down bad law.

 The bench also quoted a judgment from US Supreme Court which reads as, “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 laws.”

In the view of the aforementioned, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court was set aside and the appeal was allowed while observing that all the instructions issued by any Public Service Commissions to the candidates are mandatory/ obligatory and they are required to be strictly complied with and the Hon’ble High Courts cannot relax/modify these instructions.

Section Editor: Shrishti Mittal | 02 Sep 2019 14:01pm IST


Tags : #judicialcommmissions #SC #HIGHCOURTS

Latest News

























5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice


Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.