HC relief for TNPSC candidate who wrote ‘Jai Hind‘ as part of answer

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the authorities to validate her answer paper which was invalidated by the authorities

The Madras High Court directed authorities to validate a civil services candidate’s answer sheet invalidated on grounds that she wrote ‘Jai Hind’ in one of her answers

Granting relief to a candidate who took the 2013-2014 TNPSC Combined Civil Services Examinations (Group II), the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the authorities to validate her answer paper which was invalidated by the authorities on the grounds that one of the answers was irrelevant to the question. She wrote ‘Jai Hind’ (Victory to India) in one of her answers.

The court was hearing the petition filed in 2017 by the candidate M. Kalpana. She had applied under the BC Woman (PSTM) category. After clearing the preliminary examination, Ms. Kalpana took the main examination in 2014, comprising Part A and Part B. She was subsequently called for certificate verification and interview.

In 2015, she was called for counselling. However, she was not selected as she had secured 184 marks and missed the cut off 190 marks by just six marks. The petitioner came to know that in Part A paper she was awarded 160 marks and interview 24 marks. Part B paper was not evaluated.

To a question ‘write a detailed account on importance and conservation of natural resources’, the petitioner had concluded her essay with the remarks, ‘Jai Hind, let us live united with nature’. While the petitioner contended that it was very much relevant to the question as the concluding remarks to the answer, the authorities submitted that the words ‘Jai Hind’ were irrelevant to the question.

Justice Battu Devanand observed that only the examiner competent could decide whether ‘Jai Hind, Let us live united with nature’ could be considered as concluding remarks to the answer to the question with regard to the conservation of natural resources. The authorities cannot take a decision invalidating the answer paper of the petitioner coming to a conclusion that the remarks by the petitioner at the conclusion of the essay were irrelevant.

The court observed that it intended to visualise the issue from a different angle. For the development and the prosperity of the country, the conservation of natural resources were essential and important. It was the duty of every citizen to safeguard the natural resources available in the country. The persons, who were having the idea of ‘patriotism’, definitely safeguard the natural resources for the benefit of the future generations.