UNION OF INDIAversusMAHENDRA SINGH

                        [2022] 6 S.C.R. 1001                            1001


                        UNION OF INDIA                                  A
                                 v.
                       MAHENDRA SINGH
                  (Civil Appeal No. 4807 of 2022)
                           JULY 25, 2022                                B
        [HEMANT GUPTA AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
       Service Law – Condition provided in the advertisement that
the application has to be in the language for which the candidates
want to attempt the question paper – Violation of – Effect – Writ
                                                                        C
petitioner appeared for the written test and wrote the paragraph in
Hindi on the OMR sheet, though in the application form, he had
written it in English – Candidature rejected – Decision set aside by
Single Judge, affirmed by Division Bench – On appeal, held: The
condition that language in the application form shall be used for
the purposes of OMR examination is for the reason that in case any      D
dispute arises in respect of identity of the candidate, the same can
be verified from the two handwritings – Once the writ petitioner
has filled the application form in English, having also signed in
English, it cannot be said to be an inadvertent mistake when he has
written the para in Hindi – Such writing in different language
                                                                        E
violates the instruction clearly mentioned in the advertisement – If
a particular procedure in filling up the application form is
prescribed, the application form should be filled up following that
procedure alone – Candidature of writ petitioner rightly rejected
by appellants – Order of High Court set aside.
                                                                        F
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: The condition that language in the application form
shall be used for the purposes of OMR examination is for the
reason that in case any dispute arises in respect of identity of the
candidate, the same can be verified from the two handwritings.
The sole reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High Court        G
of time gap between the filling up of the application form and the
examination, and hence inadvertent filling up of OMR sheet in
Hindi by the writ petitioner is based on surmises and conjectures.
Once the writ petitioner has filled the application form in English,
having also signed in English, it cannot be said to be an inadvertent   H
                                 1001
1002            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 6 S.C.R.


 A     mistake when he has written the para in Hindi. Such writing in
       different language violates the instruction clearly mentioned in
       the advertisement. The language chosen is relevant to ensure
       that the candidate who has filled up the application form alone
       appears in the written examination to maintain probity. The
       answer sheets have to be in the language chosen by the candidate
 B
       in the application form. If a particular procedure in filling up the
       application form is prescribed, the application form should be
       filled up following that procedure alone. Since the advertisement
       contemplated the manner of filling up of the application form and
       also the attempting of the answer sheets, it has to be done in the
 C     manner so prescribed. Since the writ petitioner has used different
       language for filling up of the application form and the OMR answer
       book, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected by the
       appellants. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. The
       writ petition is dismissed. [Paras 12-14, 17-19][1008-D-E, F-G;
       1009-A-B; 1010-A-C]
 D
             State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. G. Hemalathaa & Anr.
             (2020) 19 SCC 430; Ajay Kumar Mishra v. Union of
             India & Ors. (2016) SCC OnLine Del 6553; Ram
             Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
             Board & Anr. (2016) 4 SCC 754; Avtar Singh v. Union
 E           of India & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 471 : [2016] 7 SCR 445
             - distinguished.
             Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad & Ors. (1999)
             8 SCC 266 : [1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 754; Cherukuri Mani
             v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh &
 F           Ors. (2015) 13 SCC 722 : [2014] 6 SCR 750; Municipal
             Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) v. Abhilash
             Lal & Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 234 : [2019] 14 SCR 659;
             OPTO Circuit India Limited v. Axis Bank & Ors. (2021)
             6 SCC 707 – relied on.
 G           Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor (1936) SCC OnLine PC
             41 – referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
       (2020) 19 SCC 430             distinguished          Para 10
 H     (2016) 4 SCC 754              distinguished          Para 10
               UNION OF INDIA v. MAHENDRA SINGH                             1003


[2016] 7 SCR 445                     distinguished       Para 10            A
[1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 754              relied on           Para 15
[2014] 6 SCR 750                     relied on           Para 16
[2019] 14 SCR 659                    relied on           Para 17
(2021) 6 SCC 707                     relied on           Para 17            B
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4807
of 2022.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal Defective No. 303 of 2019.
                                                                            C
      Ms. Madhvi Divan, ASG, Amrish Kumar, Ms. Priyanka Das,
Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Ms. Manasi Kumari, Raj Bahadur
Yadav, Advs. for the Appellants.
        Prashant Bhushan, Rahul Gupta, Advs. for the Respondent.
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                          D

        HEMANT GUPTA, J.
      1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad whereby appeal filed by
the appellants was dismissed. Such appeal was directed against an order     E
passed by the learned Single Bench of the High Court, wherein, an order
dated 27.1.2017 passed by the appellants was quashed and thus,
consequently, the candidature of the respondent1 was to be considered
and accepted by the appellants.
       2. The Employment Notice No. 1/2011 was published to fill up         F
11952 posts of Constables in the Railway Protection Force2. The process
of selection comprised of written examination consisting of 120 multiple
choice objection type questions of one mark each and of 90 minutes
duration. The candidates had to obtain at least 35% marks (30% in the
case of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates) in the written
examination for being considered for other Test such as Physical            G
Efficiency Test 3. Para 8 Clause B of the Advertisement gives the
requirement of an application form and also that the said application
1
  For short, the ‘writ petitioner’
2
  For short, the ‘RPF’
3
  For short, the ‘PET’                                                      H
1004              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 6 S.C.R.


 A     should be filled up by the candidates in their own handwriting, in Hindi or
       English only. The applications were required to be accompanied by a
       self-attested matriculation certificate as proof of educational qualification
       and age. The relevant conditions read as under:
             “8. xxx                                        xxx
 B           B. Application form’ a) The format of the application form is given
             in Annexure ‘A’. Application forms can be downloaded from the
             official website of Indian Railways (www.indlanrailways.gov.in)
             or taken from the Employment News or from this advertisement
             and submitted on A-4 size bond paper, using one side only and
 C           sent to the Nodal Chief Security Commissioner corresponding to
             the language chosen for the Question Paper. Only one application
             need be sent. The addresses of the Nodal Chief Security
             Commissioners, the details of the person in whose favour the Draft/
             IPO shall be drawn and the place where payable are given below.
             The languages for the question paper are also shown against each
 D           Nodal Chief Security Commissioner for the convenience of the
             applicants.




 E




 F


             xx                           xx                         xx
             (e) Applications should be filled by the candidates in their own
 G           handwriting, in Hindi or English only. Left Hand thumb impression
             in the case of Male applicants and Right-Hand thumb impression
             in case of Female applicants shall be affixed in the box given at
             the bottom of the application. Applications signed in capital letters/
             spaced-out letters will be treated as invalid. Applications with

 H
                UNION OF INDIA v. MAHENDRA SINGH                                  1005
                       [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

         correction or overwriting or smudged thumb impression may be             A
         rejected.
         xx                          xx                         xx
         9 (e) Impersonation, if any, detected at any stage of the recruitment,
         may result in initiating criminal cases against the applicant and the
         impersonator as well as canceling the candidature of the applicant.”     B

       3. The writ petitioner belongs to Other Backward Class category
and has filled up his application form along with Indian Postal Order
dated 5.3.2011 in English. His signatures are in English consisting of two
letters “M” and “S”. Such application form is accompanied with a self-
attested marksheet of high school examination and other certificates.             C
All such documents are self-attested and signed in Hindi.
      4. The writ petitioner appeared for the written test on 23.6.2013
where he wrote the paragraph in Hindi on the OMR sheet, though in the
application form, he had written it in English. He signed in Hindi then.
Subsequently, when the writ petitioner appeared for the PET on 7.3.2014,          D
he again signed as “M S”.
       5. The appellants obtained the opinion of the Government Examiner
of Questioned Documents4 on 2.9.2014. The expert’s opinion was that
the signatures on the OMR sheet and on the xerox copies of the
certificates are by one and the same person. It was also opined that it is        E
not possible to express any opinion in respect of para written in Hindi in
the OMR sheet and in English in the application form.
       6. Since the writ petitioner was not appointed, though he had
obtained 73.32 marks against the cut-off of 58.5 marks in the OBC
category, he filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad. An         F
order was passed by the High Court on 19.10.2016 wherein the matter
was remitted to the appellants to reconsider the entire issue, including
thumb impression and finger prints that have taken place at various stages
of the examination. An opportunity was given to the writ petitioner to
make a fresh application which shall be heard by the Chief Security
                                                                                  G
Commissioner. The candidature of the writ petitioner was rejected on
27.1.2017 by the Competent Authority, inter alia, on the following
grounds:


4
    For short, the ‘GEQD’                                                         H
1006            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 6 S.C.R.


 A           “In compliance to the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the dossier
             concerned to the petitioner, was scanned and the petitioner was
             also shown the same. The record signature and handwriting of
             the petitioner on the following documents have been examined by
             the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents: -
 B




 C

             As per the expert opinion signature/handwriting made on the
             documents marked as Q-1 and 5-1 to 5-7 are same, but signature/
             handwriting made on the documents marked as Q-2 & Q-3 are
 D           different from the signature/handwriting made on the documents
             marked as Q-1 and S-1 to S-7. So far as signature/hand writing
             made on the record marked Q-1/1 and Q-3/1 are concerned, the
             signature/hand writing made on these documents were checked
             intensively and on comparing the above mark with signature/
             handwriting made on the records, it was found that the petitioner
 E           has filled in his application in English version and on the OMR
             sheet he has used Hindi version to record his writing which is
             violation of the instruction, given in para-3 of OMR sheet. In para-
             3 of the OMR sheet it had been instructed that the same language
             should be used to write on OMR sheet in own writing, which had
 F           been adopted to filled in the application form. The matching of
             writing of the petitioner failed due to mistake of the petitioner
             himself since he used two languages. Similarly, the matching of
             the signatures failed, since the petitioner did his signature on the
             application form in English whereas on the OMR Sheet in Hindi,
             which is fault of the petitioner. The petitioner was clarified by
 G           showing this difference. As such, the petitioner could not produce
             any solid base to disagree with the opinion of the expert.”
             7. The writ petitioner again filed a writ petition challenging the
       decision of the Competent Authority. Said decision was set aside by the
       learned Single Bench of the High Court on 20.2.2019. The said order
 H
             UNION OF INDIA v. MAHENDRA SINGH                                   1007
                    [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide the order             A
impugned in the present appeal.
        8. The requirement to write a paragraph in the application form
was to compare the handwriting of the candidate in the event of any
dispute of identity which may arise as to whether the same person has
appeared for the written examination who had filled up the application          B
form. The High Court has basically relied upon the fact that from the
opinion of the handwriting expert, there is no proof of charge of
impersonation. However, it was held that the application form had been
filled up in the year 2011 whereas the examination took place in the year
2013, therefore, the writ petitioner had filled up Column No. 3 of the
OMR sheet in Hindi inadvertently on account of time gap between the             C
filling up of the application form and the examination.
       9. The question required to be examined herein is to the effect of
violation of the condition provided in the advertisement that the application
has to be in the language for which the candidates want to attempt the
question paper, and what is the effect of using different language in the       D
application form than the OMR sheet.
       10. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG has argued that the use of
different language in the application form than what is used in the OMR
sheet by itself entails rejection of the candidature. Ms. Divan has referred
to a judgment reported as State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. G.                      E
Hemalathaa & Anr.5. On the other hand, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned
counsel for the writ petitioner argued that use of a different language is
only an irregularity, though it is admitted that the purpose of using the
same language is to avoid impersonation and to ascertain the genuineness
of the candidate. Mr. Bhushan has referred to judgments in Ajay Kumar           F
Mishra v. Union of India & Ors.6, Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi
Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. 7 and Avtar Singh v.
Union of India & Ors.8.
       11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find the
judgments referred to by Ms. Divan and Mr. Bhushan are not applicable           G
to the facts of the present case. In G. Hemalathaa, the condition that

5
  (2020) 19 SCC 430
6
  2016 SCC OnLine Del 6553
7
  (2016) 4 SCC 754
8
  (2016) 8 SCC 471                                                              H
1008             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 6 S.C.R.


 A     usage of whitener, sketch pens, pencil, colour pencils, multi-colour pens
       would lead to invalidation of the answer book. In these circumstances, it
       was held that violation of such mandatory conditions by the candidate
       disentitles for declaration of her result for appointment to the post of
       Civil Judge. The judgment in Ajay Kumar Mishra of the Delhi High
       Court arises out of the fact of cancellation of the candidature on account
 B
       of furnishing incorrect information about the actual date of birth of the
       writ petitioner. In Ram Kumar Gijroya, the candidate had submitted
       his certificate of being belonging to Other Backward Class after the last
       date of submission of the application. Avtar Singh is a case where there
       was suppression of material information regarding the criminal cases in
 C     which the candidate may be involved. Thus, all these cases are on their
       own facts, not involving similar issue as arising in the present appeal.
               12. In the present case, more than 11,000 posts were advertised
       for filling up of the posts of Constables in the RPF. Though the number
       of candidates who appeared in response to such advertisement is not
 D     available, but generally, it is a matter of common experience that
       candidates much more than the posts advertised are the aspirants for
       such posts. The condition that language in the application form shall be
       used for the purposes of OMR examination is for the reason that in case
       any dispute arises in respect of identity of the candidate, the same can
       be verified from the two handwritings. Still further, the question papers
 E     are required to be set up in the languages other than Hindi and English
       as well. The applications in different languages were to be sent to different
       Nodal Officers in Gorakhpur, Kolkata, Bhubaneshwar and Chennai. Still
       further, the OMR answer sheet is bilingual, in Hindi and English, but it
       would be in some other language if a candidate has chosen a language
 F     other than English or Hindi.
              13. The sole reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High
       Court of time gap between the filling up of the application form and the
       examination, and hence inadvertent filling up of OMR sheet in Hindi by
       the writ petitioner is based on surmises and conjectures. Once the writ
 G     petitioner has filled the application form in English, having also signed in
       English, it cannot be said to be an inadvertent mistake when he has
       written the para in Hindi. Such writing in different language violates the
       instruction clearly mentioned in the advertisement.
               14. The argument of Mr. Bhushan that use of different language
 H     is not followed by any consequence and, therefore, cannot be said to be
             UNION OF INDIA v. MAHENDRA SINGH                                    1009
                    [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

mandatory is not tenable. The language chosen is relevant to ensure that         A
the candidate who has filled up the application form alone appears in the
written examination to maintain probity. The answer sheets have to be
in the language chosen by the candidate in the application form. It is well
settled that if a particular procedure in filling up the application form is
prescribed, the application form should be filled up following that
                                                                                 B
procedure alone. This was enunciated by Privy Council in the Nazir
Ahmad v. King-Emperor9, wherein it was held that “that where a power
is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in
that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily
forbidden.”
     15. A three Judge Bench of this Court in a judgment reported as             C
Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad & Ors.10, held as under:
      “17....................It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a
      statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then
      it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. (See with
      advantage: Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [(1935-36) 63 IA 372                D
      : AIR 1936 PC 253 (II)] , Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of
      V.P. [AIR 1954 SC 322 : 1954 SCR 1098] , State of
      U.P. v. Singhara Singh [AIR 1964 SC 358 : (1964) 1 SCWR 57]
      .) An election petition under the rules could only have been
      presented in the open court up to 16-5-1995 till 4.15 p.m. (working        E
      hours of the Court) in the manner prescribed by Rule 6 (supra)
      either to the Judge or the Bench as the case may be to save the
      period of limitation. That, however, was not done................”
     16. The said principle has been followed by this Court in Cherukuri
Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 11                  F
wherein this Court held as under:
      “14. Where the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular
      manner following a particular procedure, it shall be done in the
      same manner following the provisions of law, without deviating
      from the prescribed procedure.............”                                G
    17. Similarly, this Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai (MCGM) v. Abhilash Lal & Ors.12 and OPTO Circuit India
9
  1936 SCC OnLine PC 41
10
   (1999) 8 SCC 266
11
   (2015) 13 SCC 722
12
   (2020) 13 SCC 234                                                             H
1010                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 6 S.C.R.


 A     Limited v. Axis Bank & Ors.13 has followed the said principle. Since
       the advertisement contemplated the manner of filling up of the application
       form and also the attempting of the answer sheets, it has to be done in
       the manner so prescribed. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Division
       Bench of the High Court that on account of lapse of time, the writ
       petitioner might have attempted the answer sheet in a different language
 B
       is not justified as the use of different language itself disentitles the writ
       petitioner from any indulgence in exercise of the power of judicial review.
             18. Since the writ petitioner has used different language for filling
       up of the application form and the OMR answer book, therefore, his
       candidature was rightly rejected by the appellants.
 C
              19. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court cannot be
       sustained in law, the same is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed.
       Consequently, the appeal is allowed.


 D     Divya Pandey                                                   Appeal allowed.




 E




 F




 G




       13
 H          (2021) 6 SCC 707