W.P. Nos. 4509, 4510, 4511, 4512, 4513, 4514, 4515, 4516, 4517, 4518, 7411, 7412, 7413, 7414, 7415, 7416, 7417, 7418, 8874, 8938, 9181, 10752, 10753, 10754, 10755, 10756, 10757, 10758, 10759, 10760, 10761, 10762, 10763, 10764, 11224, 11807, 12032, 12870, 13130, 13367, 13490, 13491, 13492, 13493, 13494, 13495, 13496, 13497, 14463, 14487, 14888, .... Case: A. Eswaramoorthy Vs 1. Secretary, Home Department, 2. Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 3. Director General of Police, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, 4. R. Arjun Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | W.P. Nos. 4509, 4510, 4511, 4512, 4513, 4514, 4515, 4516, 4517, 4518, 7411, 7412, 7413, 7414, 7415, 7416, 7417, 7418, 8874, 8938, 9181, 10752, 10753, 10754, 10755, 10756, 10757, 10758, 10759, 10760, 10761, 10762, 10763, 10764, 11224, 11807, 12032, 12870, 13130, 13367, 13490, 13491, 13492, 13493, 13494, 13495, 13496, 13497, 14463, 14487, 14888, ... |
| Judges | M. M. Sundresh, J. |
| Issue | Right to Information Act, 2005; Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 |
| Judgement Date | November 04, 2009 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Judgment:
M. M. Sundresh, J.
1. In view of the common issues involved in all the writ petitions, they have been taken up together for disposal and a common order is passed.
2. The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as follows:
A notification was issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board as per the directions of the Government of Tamil Nadu in the newspapers on 18.07.2006 for the recruitment of Sub-Inspector of Police. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board has been constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu for the purpose of recruiting the eligible candidates for various posts in the police department. The notification has been issued for the selection of 682 Sub-Inspector of Police. The selection was for a large number of vacancies since over the years the posts have not been filled up. Out of 682 posts, 517 vacancies have been reserved for direct recruitment and out of the same 445 were meant for men and 72 for women respectively. Two women ST candidates from the backlog vacancies in direct recruitment of selection were also included in the list. Of the remaining 146 vacancies which have been earmarked for departmental candidates with the percentage of 20, 126 have been allotted for men and 20 for women. Even in the said category, 17 women candidates in the backlog vacancies coming under various reserved categories were also included.
Recruitment process in the above said selection was conducted at 12 Centres throughout the State. The recruitment process consists of Certificate Verification, Physical Measurement Test, Endurance Test, Physical Efficiency Test, Written Test, Viva-voce. A candidate who fails in any one of the above said process is eliminated then and there by issuing a disqualification slip. After the completion of the Physical Efficiency Test, Written Test was held on 20.05.2007. Thereafter, based upon the marks obtained in the Viva-voce as well as the Written Test, candidates have been selected. The appointments have been made from 20.12.2007 onwards.
Writ petitions have been filed in the year 2007 by the unsuccessful candidates before the Hon'ble High Court, challenging the provisional selected list and also seeking consideration based upon special sport category and special quota. In the said writ petitions, the grievances of the petitioners therein were that the quota fixed for each category has not been followed, Written Test not conducted properly, ST/SC quota has not been filled up, quota earmarked for the wards of the police personnel not published, there is a lack of transparency in the selection, marks have been awarded in the Sports Certificate and lesser marks have been given to the petitioners in the Viva-voce. The writ petitions have been dismissed by the learned single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court in and by the order dated 20.11.2007 and the writ appeal filed in Writ Appeal No.194 of 2007 etc. were also dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 28.03.2008.
Thereafter from the month of June 2008 onwards, applications have been made by the petitioners at different point of time seeking the particulars of the marks awarded, key answers as well as the copies of the answer sheets written by them. Accordingly, the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board has furnished all the particulars required by the petitioners after taking some time. The petitioners after receiving the said particulars came to understand that marks have been wrongly awarded by selecting wrong key answers as the correct key answers. In other words, the selected candidates who answer some of the questions wrongly have been given marks as against the non-selected candidates who have answered correctly but given the marks wrongly in view of the mistakes committed by the respondents in awarding marks by choosing in correct key answers.
Thereafter, further informations have been sought for by the petitioners from the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board. A reply has been given by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board stating that for question no.11, answer no.D is the correct answer, for question no.38, all the answers are right and question no.44, option-A is the correct answer. The Board has also requested the first respondent to look into the anomaly caused by correcting the answer papers with wrong key answers by providing appointment to the affected candidates. However, the said request was rejected by the first respondent.
As per the Written Test, the OMR answer sheets have been evaluated by the computer instead of manual corrections. The candidates were given the choice of shading the correct answers in the OMR answer sheets in pencil.
Question No.11 is as follows:
11. Greenhouse effect is caused by
-
Oxygen depletion
-
Ozone layer depletion
-
Hydrogen reduction
-
Greenery reduction
Question No.38 is as follows:
38. What percentage (%) of human body weight is water?
-
55
-
65
-
70
-
80
Question No.44 is as follows:
44. Free India's first Governor-General was
-
Mountbatten
-
Rajaji
-
Dr.Zakir Hussain
-
Dr.Radhakrishnan
The evaluation was made by giving the key answer for question no.11 as Ozone Layer Depletion (B), for question no.38 as 70 (C) and question no.44 as Rajaji (B) respectively. The correct answers which are subsequently given by the Board for question no.11 is (D), question no.38, all the answers and question no.44 is (A). Therefore, there is no dispute regarding the correct answers as per the subsequent communication sent by the Board. In other words, there is an admission by the respondents about the mistakes committed in correcting the answer sheets on the basis of wrong key answers.
Thereafter, after obtaining the above said information from the Board under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to include the marks which were wrongly awarded to the petitioners in view of the wrong key answers resulting in wrong evaluation. An application was filed under Rule 2-A of the Appellate-Side Rules and the said application filed in M.P.No.2 of 2009 in W.P.No.4509 of 2009 was ordered permitting to implead the fourth respondent therein as the representative of the selected candidates.
3. Heard Shri.K.Venkataramani, Shri.C.Selvaraj learned senior counsels and Mr.S.Sivakumar, M/s.G.Bala and Daisy, Mr.G.Srinivasan, Mr.K.Ravi Anantha Padmanaban, Mr.A.Jenesenan, Mr.J.Saravanan, Mr.P.I.Thirumoorthy, Mr. A.R.M.Arunachalam, Mr.V.Manohar, Mr.S.Thirumavalavan, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and Shri.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
4. The submissions on behalf of the petitioners are as follows:
It is submitted by the learned counsels for the petitioners that inasmuch as the respondents having admitted the mistakes in not awarding the marks correctly and awarding the marks wrongly to the selected candidates, as a consequent thereon the said marks should be added to the marks obtained by the petitioners and with the added marks, they should be considered for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. It is further submitted that the present situation is only because of the respondents and therefore, they cannot take advantage of their own wrong. The petitioners were not aware of the awarding of the wrong marks earlier since they came to know about the facts only in pursuant to the application made by them under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Even the question paper has been taken away from the petitioners after the examination was over and therefore, the petitioners were in dark not knowing about the mistakes committed by the respondents. The said mistake having been admitted by the respondents as seen by the letter sent by the Board to the Government dated 30.01.2009 wherein there is an admission by the Board that the question papers were opened only in the printing press and neither the question paper nor the key has been verified, nothing prevented the Board from verifying the same after the examination is over. The Board being a creation of the Government all the respondents are responsible for the mistakes committed by the Board.
The learned counsels further submitted that in a case where mistakes were committed by the respondents and because of the same candidates are made to suffer then the said mistakes will have to be made good by rectifying the key answers by awarding marks to the petitioners. It is further submitted that in such a case Supernumerary Posts will have to be created by appointing such of those persons who otherwise would have been selected but for the awarding of the wrong marks.
In support of the contention that the marks will have to be awarded by creating the Supernumerary Post, the learned senior counsel Shri.C.Selvaraj has relied upon the judgments reported in W.P.NO.18714 OF 2008 etc. DATED 13.08.2008; (2005) 13 SCC 749 [GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY v. SAUMIL GARG AND OTHERS]; (1996) 7 SCC 106 [STATE OF ORISSA v. PRAJNAPARAMITA SAMANTHA]; (1984) 2 SCC 319 [ABHIJIT SEN v. STATE OF U.P.]; (1996) 10 SCC 177 [D.K.REDDY v. UNION OF INDIA]; (1997) 11 SCC 488 [DELHI ADMINISTRATION v. NAND LAL PANT]; (1998) 4 SCC 107 [UNION OF INDIA v. AKHILESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL] AND W.P.NO.12127 OF 2008 etc DATED 31.07.2008. Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned senior counsel further submitted that the vacancies have been taken into account as available as on 31.12.2004. If the vacancies available as on the date of the appointment are taken into account, then the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents will fall to the ground since by adopting the said procedure all the persons who are otherwise eligible would have a chance to get appointed. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel has relied upon the judgment reported in (2002) 10 SCC 549 [SANDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER] wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial