Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

490
Karnataka PSC
necessary for us to examine whether the order of the Tribunal can be sustained or not. As observed
earlier, the only ground on which the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the respondents to appear in the
main examination is that, they had claimed the benefit of reservation in Group-3B category in the
preliminary examination due to a bona fide mistake. The question is, whether even assuming that it
was a bona fide mistake, the respondents were entitled to change the category after appearing in the
preliminary examination. It is not disputed that the instructions to the candidates contained in the
notification specifically stated that, request for change for reservation/optional subject/center originally
indicated by them in the application will not be entertained by the Commission under any circumstances
and that the candidates should carefully decide the choice of the center, optional subject and reservation
claimed by them. It is also not disputed that in the applications for the preliminary examination, the
respondents had ticked the column for Group-3B category. It is only after the results to the preliminary
examination were declared that the respondents claimed reservation under Group-3A category. On
the face of the clear and unambiguous instructions contained in the notification issued by the Public
Service Commission, the candidates cannot be allowed to change the category as claimed by the
respondents. Even if it is due to a bona fide mistake that a wrong column was ticked by the candidate
in the application for preliminary examination he is bound by such mistake and he is liable to face the
consequences. If a different view is taken in the matter, it will unnecessarily lead to confusion in the
office of the Public Service Commission in processing the applications and it will also open opportunities
for manipulations in dealing with the fate of candidates appearing for such examinations. It is in public
interest that the instructions contained in the notification of the Public Service Commission are strictly
followed and scrupulously adhered to not only by the candidates but also by the Commission. In this
view of the matter, the Public Service Commission cannot be faulted for rejecting the applications of
the respondents for change of category and for permitting them to appear in the main examination as
Group 3A category. Hence the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and any benefit arising out
of the interim order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be denied to the respondents.
4. In taking the above view we are supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Y.C.Shivakumar and others v. B.M.Vijayashankar and others, (1992) 2 SCC 206 : (AIR 1992 SC
952). In paragraph 3 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that
even if the mistake was a bona fide mistake, larger public interest demands insistence of observance of
instruction rather than its breach. The Supreme Court observed that, what was attempted to be
achieved by the instruction was to minimize any possibility or chance of any abuse. According to the
Supreme Court the fact that it was a bona fide mistake is not material. In the above mentioned case,