Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shubham Navnath Mali, a 27-year-old M.Sc. graduate, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad challenging the cancellation of his candidature for the Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test (TAIT) conducted by the Maharashtra State Examination Council. The petitioner had applied for the TAIT examination and was issued a call letter. However, due to a technical glitch, he was unable to log in on the scheduled date and time. He contacted the helpline and was advised to appear on a later date. Consequently, he appeared twice in the online examination. The Council, relying on Clauses 4 and 14 of the Guidelines, cancelled his candidature on the ground that multiple appearances are not permitted. The petitioner contended that the cancellation was arbitrary and disproportionate as the second appearance was not deliberate but due to a technical issue. The court examined the Guidelines and noted that they are not statutory but mere instructions. The court held that the cancellation of candidature without considering the petitioner's explanation was violative of principles of natural justice and proportionality. The court directed the respondents to restore the petitioner's candidature and treat his appearance as valid, allowing him to proceed further in the selection process. The judgment emphasized that examination bodies should adopt a humane approach and not penalize candidates for technical glitches beyond their control.
Headnote
A) Examination Law - Multiple Appearances - Cancellation of Candidature - Clauses 4 and 14 of TAIT Guidelines - The petitioner appeared twice in the TAIT examination due to a technical glitch, not deliberate intent. The court held that the Guidelines are not statutory and cancellation of candidature without considering the explanation was disproportionate and violative of natural justice. (Paras 1-10) B) Administrative Law - Guidelines - Non-Statutory Nature - The court observed that the Guidelines issued by the Maharashtra State Examination Council are not statutory rules but mere instructions, and strict adherence cannot be enforced to the detriment of a candidate without fault. (Paras 3-5) C) Constitutional Law - Right to Fair Consideration - Article 14 - The court directed restoration of the petitioner's candidature, emphasizing that a candidate should not suffer for a technical glitch beyond his control, and the examination body must adopt a humane approach. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the candidature of a candidate who appeared twice in the TAIT examination due to a technical glitch can be cancelled under Clauses 4 and 14 of the Guidelines, and whether such cancellation is proportionate and in accordance with natural justice.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the cancellation of the petitioner's candidature, and directed the respondents to restore his candidature and treat his appearance as valid, allowing him to proceed further in the selection process.
Law Points
- Guidelines for competitive examinations are not statutory
- multiple appearances due to technical glitch not deliberate
- principles of natural justice
- proportionality
