The question of whether inscribing the phrase 'Jai Hind' on an answer paper submitted by a job aspirant constitutes legitimate grounds for disqualification has recently come into focus. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) believed it did, leading to the disqualification of a female job-seeker. However, the Madras High Court intervened, asserting that 'Jai Hind' symbolizes patriotic fervor and should not serve as a basis for disqualification. This case raises important questions about the intersection of patriotic expression and the rules governing job applications.

The phrase 'Jai Hind' or 'Victory to India' holds a significant place in Indian culture and expression. It is a ubiquitous slogan in the country, commonly recited by school children at the end of their prayers and frequently used as a concluding remark in speeches delivered by distinguished individuals. Justice Battu Devanand emphasized that 'Jai Hind' is the closing sentiment in various communications that seek to invoke patriotic fervor and dedication to the motherland, be it referred to as India or Bharat.

The controversy surrounding the use of the phrase 'Jai Hind' in answer papers began when M Kalpana, who had completed the descriptive section of her Group-II services examination in 2014, concluded her general studies essay on the importance and conservation of natural resources with the statement 'Jai Hind, Let us live united with nature.' This examination was divided into two parts, Part A and Part B, followed by an interview. Kalpana faced disqualification from the Part B examination, while she received 160 marks in Part A and an additional 24 marks for her interview. Unfortunately, her total score of 184 fell short of the required cut-off mark of 190, leading to her non-selection for the job.

After filing a Right to Information (RTI) request, M Kalpana discovered that her answer paper for the Part-B exam had been invalidated due to the inclusion of the phrase 'Jai Hind, Let us live united with nature' in her response to a question about the importance and conservation of natural resources. Kalpana noted that the concluding remark was directly relevant to the question at hand. In response to this situation, she filed a petition in 2017, requesting a reevaluation of her answer paper and her appointment to the job post, arguing that her answer was pertinent to the question and should not have been invalidated.

The TNPSC maintained its position, asserting that Kalpana had included irrelevant remarks, specifically 'Jai Hind,' at the conclusion of her answer. They argued that this violated the instructions provided to candidates, leading to the invalidation of her answer paper. According to the TNPSC, these remarks were considered impertinent and not directly related to the question, justifying their decision to disqualify her response.

Justice Battu Devanand dismissed the argument made and stated that the petitioner's concluding remarks about unity with nature were relevant and appropriate. He ruled that these remarks should not be considered irrelevant or indicative of the petitioner's identity. The judge instructed the TNPSC to evaluate Kalpana's answer papers in Part-B and award marks. If she met the required marks in both Part-A and Part-B, she was to be appointed to the relevant position within four weeks, according to the judge's directive.