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 procedure alone. This was enunciated by Privy Council in the Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor [1936 SCC OnLine PC 41] , 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.”

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in a judgment, reported as Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad & Ors. [(1999) 8 SCC 266] , 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 : 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 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…………….”

Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad & Ors. [(1999) 8 SCC 266]

The said principle has been followed by this Court in Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [(2015) 13 SCC 722] 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………….”

Similarly, Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) v. Abhilash Lal & Ors. [(2020) 13 SCC 234] and OPTO Circuit India Limited v. Axis Bank & Ors. [ (2021) 6 SCC 707] has followed the said principle.

Recently in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Mahendra Singh (CA No. 4807 of 2022), after relying on the above principle held that 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 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 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.