W.P. Nos. 29831, 29832 , 30554, 30738 to 30740, 30742 to 30744, 30770, 30771, 30794 to 30796, 30798, 30900 of 2008, 450, 787, 989, 3130 and 3139 of 2009 and W.P. (MD) Nos. 11731 and 12390 of 2008, 63 and 231 of 2009. Case: S. Senthil Kumar Vs The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. High Court of Madras (India)

Case NumberW.P. Nos. 29831, 29832 , 30554, 30738 to 30740, 30742 to 30744, 30770, 30771, 30794 to 30796, 30798, 30900 of 2008, 450, 787, 989, 3130 and 3139 of 2009 and W.P. (MD) Nos. 11731 and 12390 of 2008, 63 and 231 of 2009
CounselFor the Appellant: Vijay Narayan, T.R. Rajagopalan,N.G.R. Prasad, AR. L. Sundaresan, K. Venkataramani, Sr. Counsels and G. Krishnamurthy, Adv. And For the Respondents: V.T. Gopalan and N.R. Chandran, Sr. Counsels
JudgesV. Ramasubramanian, J.
IssueConstitution of India - Article 320
Judgement DateApril 30, 2009
CourtHigh Court of Madras (India)

Order:

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

  1. Since Group-I Services in the State of Tamil Nadu provide a short cut for entry into All India Services (IAS, IPS etc.), every selection to Group-I Services, has always been bogged down by litigation and the batch of cases on hand is one such. But unfortunately, it is a second round of litigation in respect of the same selection, for reasons mainly attributable to persons who set the question papers for the preliminary examination.

  2. I have heard Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, Mr. Vijay Narayan, Mr, T.R. Rajagopalan, Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, Mr. K.Venkataramani and Dr. G. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior counsel/Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V.T. Gopalan and Mr. N.R.Chandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, and Mr. AL. Somayaji and Mr. C. Selvaraju, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the some candidates who have filed impleading petitions.

  3. By a notification published on 1.8.2007, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (Respondent) invited applications from eligible candidates for direct recruitment to 172 posts included in Group-I Services of the State of Tamil Nadu, for the year 2006-2007. The process of selection comprised of (i) a preliminary examination for selecting candidates for admission to the main examination (ii) a main written examination and (iii) an oral interview.

  4. A total of 85,913 candidates are said to have applied in response to the notification and the preliminary examination was held at various centres in the State on 23.12.2007. On 25.4.2008, the results of the preliminary examination were declared and out of those candidates who appeared for the preliminary examination, 1,796 candidates were declared successful for admission to the main written examination. This represented 10 times the total number of posts sought to be filled up.

  5. Immediately after the announcement of the results of the preliminary examination, a batch of 31 writ petitions came to be filed by some unsuccessful candidates, contending that there were serious mistakes in some of the questions and/or in the key answers to those questions. By a judgment dated 31.7.2008, Justice N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, disposed of the batch of writ petitions W.P.Nos.12127 of 2008 etc., with the following directions:

  6. In the light of the above findings and having regard to the judgments cited supra, I am inclined to pass the following orders:

    (i) The petitioners herein are directed to submit representation pointing out the number of questions where the questions are not correctly asked, more number of answers are found correct as per leading text books and whether key answer to the questions are correctly given on or before 7.8.2008.

    (ii) On receiving the said representations the respondent/TNPSC is directed to place the disputed questions/answers before the Expert Committee to be constituted by it for verification as to whether the questions pointed out are correct, if more than one answer given in the choice are correct and whether the key answers given to any question pointed out by the petitioners are wrong.

    (iii) On verifying the same, the Expert Committee is directed to award marks to such of those petitioners who attempted the said questions and on that basis determine the final marks of the petitioners in the preliminary examination.

    (iv) Since the above said exercise will take sometime and in view of fixation of date for the main written examination as 16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008, the respondent/TNPSC is directed to permit the petitioners herein to write the main written examinations along with 1750 candidates, who are already found eligible to write main written examination.

    (v) By following the above process, if the petitioners are getting the required cut-off marks prescribed for the respective category, their final written examination papers shall be valued. If the petitioners are not getting the required cut-off marks, their final written examination papers need not be valued.

    (vi) Since the preliminary examination results were published as early as on 25.4.2008, and the main written examination is to be held on 16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008, the benefit of this order is restricted to the writ petitioners herein, as no general directions could be issued at this belated stage.

    All the writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

  7. Following the above judgment, rendered on 31.7.2008, another writ petition filed on the same day viz., 31.7.2008 was allowed by the learned Judge, on 8.8.2008. But in the meantime, another group of 76 persons filed 77 writ petitions in W.P.Nos.18714 of 2008 etc., seeking identical reliefs. This batch of petitions was opposed by the Service Commission on the ground that as per the earlier order dated 31.7.2008, the benefits of the order were restricted only to the writ petitioners in the first batch. But the said objection was over ruled and the second batch of writ petitions were disposed of by Justice P.Jothimani by a common order passed on 13.8.2008. The operative portion of the said order in paragraph-17 reads as follows:

  8. For the reasons stated, the above writ petitions stand disposed of with the following directions:

    (i) The respondent, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, shall permit the petitioners herein to write final examinations to be conducted on 16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008 in various centres at Chennai by issuing Hall Tickets to them. As submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the petitioners are entitled to collect their respective Hall Tickets from the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai, in its Office on or before 5.00 p.m., on 14.8.2008. It is made clear that allowing the petitioners to write the examination does not mean that their rights to appear for final examination are recognised by this Court.

    (ii) The answer papers of final examinations to be taken by the petitioners as per the above said direction shall be kept separately in a sealed cover by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission without referring for valuation.

    (iii) All the petitioners before this Court are permitted to make individual representation to the respondent, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, bringing out the specific instances of mistake ascertained by them in the question papers or in the key answers, provided such questions are attended by the petitioners concerned. They must also disclose their names, addresses, register numbers, question numbers, question booklet series, the Writ Petition Numbers, the genuine doubt about their key answers etc., in the representation. Such representations shall be submitted by the petitioners to the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, in its Office on or before 5.00 p.m., on 14.8.2008. As fairly submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent Public Service Commission, on submission of such representation by individual petitioners, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission shall acknowledge the receipt of such objections by making proper endorsement.

    (iv) On receipt of the said representations, the respondent Service Commission shall place the entire issue before the Experts Committee to be constituted by it for verification by comparing the necessary papers of the concerned petitioners and to arrive at a final decision about its correctness or otherwise. In the event of the Experts appointed by the respondent Service Commission deciding that the questions attempted by the individual petitioner are either wrong or some mistakes have crept in, the respondent Service Commission shall grant necessary marks to the concerned petitioners.

    (v) After completion of the above said exercise, the respondent Service Commission shall decide about the petitioners entitlement or eligibility of the petitioners to write the final written examination based on the cut off mark issued by the Service Commission and thereafter, the Service Commission shall direct valuation of the final examination papers of those petitioners alone. With regard to the petitioners, who are not able to get the required cut off mark, after the exercise made by the Service Commission as stated above, their final written examination papers need not be valued and the said factum shall be published by the Service Commission in its usual manner.

    (vi) It is made clear that the decision of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission after referring to the Experts opinion shall be final, however subject to any legal remedy, which may be available to the petitioners. All other rights of Public Service Commission as per the Notification issued by them shall continue to be operative. It is made clear that if the petitioners do not appear before the respondent Service Commission by the time stipulated for submitting their objections and receiving Hall Tickets, they are not entitled for the benefits given in this order.

  9. Based on the above order passed on 13.8.2008, in the group of 77 writ petitions, 12 more writ petitions came to be allowed on 14.8.2008 and 5 writ petitions came to be allowed in the Madurai Bench of this Court, following these orders. Thus a total of 126 writ petitions, filed by 125 candidates (one candidate filed two writ petitions) were covered by the aforesaid directions passed by the two learned Judges.

  10. As a result of the orders passed in the above batches of writ petitions, 125 candidates who were the writ petitioners in those batches of writ petitions, were permitted to write the main written examination, along with the 1,796 candidates originally declared successful. All of them wrote the main written examination on 16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008.

  11. As per the directions issued in the above batches of cases, the Service Commission constituted a Committee of 23 Experts and the petitioners in the above batches of cases submitted representations to them, pointing out the questions...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT