JUDGMENT/ORDER M.I. Arun, J. - The petitioner applied for the post of a Senior Chemist with the respondent under Rural category. It required the petitioner to submit documents showing that he studied Class-I to Class-X in a Rural area. On the ground that the petitioner had submitted records to show that he studied in a Rural area from Class-VIII to Class-X only, his candidature has been rejected, even though he qualified in the written examination for the interview. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is filed. 2. In the course of arguments, petitioner submitted that, he is from a Rural area and not very tech savvy. That he had tried to upload all the relevant documents to show that he has studied in a Rural area from Class-I to Class-X, but unfortunately, the certificates to show that he studied in a Rural area from Class-I to Class-VII was not uploaded and he had no means to verify whether the said documents are uploaded or not. It is further submitted that, he has produced the copies of the relevant documents along with the writ petition and as he possess the required qualification, his case has to be sympathetically considered. It is further submitted that, after realizing that the relevant documents have not been uploaded, he tried to rectify the same by contacting the respondent, but the respondent authority did not entertain it. 3. Per contra, the advocate for the respondent submit that, the application could be submitted only online and it is the responsibility of the petitioner to verify properly as to what documents are scanned for the purpose of uploading and only thereafter, upload the documents. Once the application is uploaded, to prevent mal practice, the same cannot be altered and if the documents are not properly uploaded, the same is liable to be rejected. As there were lot of applications, the same were taken on face value and the candidates were permitted to appear in the written test and after the results were announced, the applications of the qualified candidates for the interview were scrutinized and as the application of the petitioner was incomplete, the same was rejected. 4. As there were lot of applications, the same were taken on face value and the candidates were permitted to appear in the written test and after the results were announced, the applications of the qualified candidates for the interview were scrutinized and as the application of the petitioner was incomplete, the same was rejected. 4. Attention of the Court is also drawn to certain clauses in the Circular calling for application, wherein it is mentioned as follows: Meaning that, if the applications are incomplete or if clear documents or information is not given, the applications will be rejected. 5. It is further submitted that, the interview for the post, for which the petitioner has applied is already completed much prior to the filing of the writ petition. 6. The petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon a judgment of this Court in writ petition No.24847/2022, wherein, the candidate was a scheduled caste candidate and inadvertently, he mentioned in the application that he was a scheduled tribe candidate and though he later sought to correct it, the same was not corrected and his application came to be rejected and this Court, on the ground that once a person is a scheduled caste, a mere wrong entry in the application shall not render him otherwise and on that ground, the action of the respondents therein rejecting his application was set aside. 7. The respondent have argued that, the aforementioned decision is per incuriam, as the same does not take into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Jayakumar Vs. A. Gopu and another, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 403 . Paragraphs 12 to 15 of the said judgment reads as under: '12. We are not aware any principle of law under which once a candidate is allowed participation in the selection process the selection authority is precluded from examining whether his application was complete, in order, within time or otherwise acceptable. A defect in the application form that renders the candidate ineligible might be overlooked in the initial screening and as a result he may be called for interview and may get a chance to take part in selection process but that alone does not mean that the candidate cannot be held ineligible for selection at a later stage once the defect in the application comes to light. 13. 13. It is surely open to the Tribunal to examine whether the reason assigned by the selection authority for holding a candidate ineligible for selection was valid or unreasonable and arbitrary. If the reason for excluding a candidate from the selection process is found to be unreasonable or arbitrary the Tribunal may certainly intervene but if the reason itself is valid the tribunal cannot interfere simply because the candidate was allowed participation in the selection process by being called for interview. The principle of estoppel has no application in such a case. 14. We are equally unable to appreciate the approach of the High Court. In the facts of the case it cannot be said that the decision of the concerned authority not to accept any of the two applications of respondent 1, the first being invalid for want of signature and the other being beyond time, was totally unreasonable and arbitrary. As a matter of fact the High Court has not come to any such finding. And yet the High Court observed that the second application ought to have been treated as 'part and parcel' of the first application and thus substituted its own view in the matter for the view taken by the respondent authority. Such an approach might have been permissible for the departmental appellate authority (provided there was one) but it was plainly beyond the scope of judicial review. 15. In the facts of the case we are satisfied that the concerned authority had not exercised its discretion unreasonably and arbitrarily in rejecting both the applications submitted by respondent 1 and any interference in the matter was hardly called for by the Tribunal or the High Court.' 8. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. G. Hemalathaa and another, reported in (2020) 19 SCC 413. Paragraphs 8 to 13 of the said judgment reads as under: '8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent. 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 of the Instructions is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission. 9. 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 of the Instructions is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission. 9. The High Court after summoning and perusing the answer sheet of the Respondent was convinced that there was infraction of the Instructions. However, the High Court granted the relief to the Respondent on a sympathetic consideration on humanitarian ground. The judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent in Taherakhatoon (D) By LRs v. Salambin Mohammad and Chandra Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another in support of her arguments that we should not entertain this appeal in the absence of any substantial questions of law are not applicable to the facts of this case. 10. In spite of the finding that there was no adherence to the Instructions, the High Court granted the relief, ignoring the mandatory nature of the Instructions. It cannot be said that such exercise of discretion should be affirmed by us, especially when such direction is in the teeth of the Instructions which are binding on the candidates taking the examinations. 11. In her persuasive appeal, Ms. Mohana sought to persuade us to dismiss the appeal which would enable the Respondent to compete in the selection to the post of Civil Judge. It is a well-known adage that, hard cases make bad law. In Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India4, Venkataramiah, J., held that: '13.... exercise of such power of moderation is likely to create a feeling of distrust in the process of selection to public appointments which is intended to be fair and impartial. It may also result in the violation of the principle of equality and may lead to arbitrariness. The cases pointed out by the High Court are no doubt hard cases, but hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law. In the circumstances, we lean in favour of a strict construction of the Rules and hold that the High Court had no such power under the Rules.' 12. Roberts, CJ. in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Inc. held that: (SCC Online US SC) 'Extreme cases often test the bounds of established legal principles. In the circumstances, we lean in favour of a strict construction of the Rules and hold that the High Court had no such power under the Rules.' 12. Roberts, CJ. in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Inc. held that: (SCC Online US SC) '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 law.' 13. After giving a thoughtful consideration, we are afraid that we cannot approve the judgment of the High Court as any order in favour of the candidate who has violated the mandatory Instructions would be laying down bad law. The other submission made by Ms. Mohana that an order can be passed by us under Article 142 of the Constitution which shall not be treated as a precedent also does not appeal to us.' 9. Reading of the above judgments makes it clear that a candidate has to apply to the post desired by him, in the manner prescribed. An application not made in the manner prescribed, cannot be treated as an application at all. Whether the defect is curable or not, depends on facts and circumstances of each case. The same has to be decided based on the conditions prescribed by the employer. No doubt, the fact remains, that in the instant case, the petitioner is a rural candidate. But it is for him to apply under the said category with all relevant records in the manner prescribed in the application form. The conditions mentioned in the notification, makes it clear if complete details are not provided, the application is liable to be rejected. If the same is interfered by the Courts, it becomes very difficult for the employer to complete the process of recruitment in time, given the volume of the applications that may be received. Given the amount of applications received to several posts, believing the information in the application, the respondent initially has permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination. On verification, as the documents were found to be improper, his application is rejected. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Jayakumar's Case (supra), there cannot be estoppel against the respondent in such cases. 10. On verification, as the documents were found to be improper, his application is rejected. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Jayakumar's Case (supra), there cannot be estoppel against the respondent in such cases. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.