Madras High Court
John Kennedy vs The Secretary on 13 August, 2008
Author: P.Jyothimani
Bench: P.Jyothimani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.08.2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI
W.P.Nos.18714, 18780,18839 to 18842, 18866 to 18871,
18911 to 18914, 18881 to 18890, 18948 to 18953, 18955, 18974, 19121 to 19125, 19134 to 19138, 19146 to 19152, 19171,
19223 to 19227, 19243 to 19248, 19254 to 19260, 19264 to 19266, 19288, 19305 to 19307 of 2008
and connected M.Ps.
W.P.No.18714 of 2008
John Kennedy ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Government Estate, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002. ... Respondent.
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to treat the petitioner as having passed the Group-I Services Preliminary examination 2006-2007 conducted by the respondent on 23.12.2007 by rectifying the wrong key answers assigned to questions in B series numbers 118, 133, 140, 143, 152 and 167 in the said examinations and to allow the petitioner to write the Group-I Main Examinations to be conducted on 16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008.
For petitioner in :Mr.S.Silambannan, S.C., W.P.No.18714/2008 for Mr.N.Umapathi.
For petitioner in :Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar for
W.P.No.18780/2008 M/s.Row and Reddy.
For Petitioners in :Mr.C.Sivakumar W.P.Nos.18839 to 18842/2008
& 18911 to 18914 /2008
For Petitioners in :Mr.G.R.Prasad for
W.P.Nos.18866 to 18871/2008 Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveenkumar
& 19121 to 19125/2008
& 19134 to 19138/2008
& 19223 to 19227/2008
& 19243 to 19248/2008
& 19254 to 19260/2008
For Petitioners in :Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail
W.P.Nos.18881 to 18885/2008
& 18886 to 18890/2008
For Petitioners in :Mr.S.Udayakumar
W.P.Nos.18948 to 18952/2008
For Petitioner in :Ms.E.Balasharmila
W.P.No.18953/2008
For Petitioner in :M/s.G.Vijay Anand W.P.No.18955/2008 Associates
For Petitioner in :Mr.R.Y.George Williams
W.P.No.18974/2008
For Petitioners in :Mr.V.P.Rajendran
W.P.Nos.19146 to 19150/2008
& 19151 & 19152/2008
& 19305 to 19307/2008
For Petitioner in :Mr.M.Rajasekar
W.P.No.19171/2008
For Petitioners in :Mr.N.Velmurugan
W.P.Nos.19264 to 19266/2008
For Petitioner in :Ms.B.Jayanthi
W.P.No.19288/2008
For Respondent in :Mr.V.T.Gopalan, S.C.,
all the W.Ps. For M/s.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi
for T.N.P.S.C.
C O M M O N O R D E R
=================== By consent of all the parties, the above writ petitions have been taken up for final disposal.
2. Since the issue involved in all the cases are one and the same, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.
3. The issue involved in all these writ petitions are relating to the preliminary examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for Group I Services in the year 2006-2007 on 23.12.2007. It is seen that the respondent, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, has issued a Notification on 01.08.2007 for commencing selection process for Group I Services. It is not in dispute that the present Notification has been issued in respect of the selection process for Group I Services after a period of 7 years. The respondent Service Commission has notified 178 posts. As per the Notification, the process of selection for Group I Services consists of 3 stages. The 1st stage is about the preliminary examination, which was conducted on 23.12.2007. The said preliminary examination is stated to be a screening test consisted of a single paper in General Knowledge of Degree Standard with 200 questions, which are objective in nature. The maximum marks being 300 and the duration of examination, which was conducted, was 3 hours. The 2nd stage is the main examination. After the screening test conducted by way of preliminary examination, the Service Commission selects candidates on the basis of 1:10 ratio having regard to the rule of reservation of appointments and the selected candidates are sent for the final written examination, which are to be conducted on 16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008 in various centres at Chennai. The said main examination is a proper written examination consisting of two papers, viz., General Studies Paper-I and General Studies Paper-II, each of 300 maximum marks with 3 hours duration. The 3rd stage is that after the selection process made in the written examination is over, the selected candidates are called for oral interview.
4. These writ petitions are concerned about the manner with which the preliminary examination was conducted by the Tamil Nadu Service Commission on 23.12.2007. These writ petitioners, who have participated in the preliminary examination on 23.12.2007, have raised some doubts about either the validity of the questions, which are prepared by the Service Commission, or about the correctness of the key answers stated to have been prepared by the Service Commission and these discrepancies, according to the petitioners, have come to limelight only after the declaration of results on 25.04.2008, by way of group discussion among the petitioners and on the basis of self-evaluation. Normally, this Court would not entertain such writ petitions against the examinations conducted by a Constitutional Authority like Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, which is performing its constitutional function, but considering the genuineness of some of the grievances raised by the petitioners as well as some candidates, this Court has taken a definite stand that the suspicion in the minds of the candidates, who have taken part in the preliminary examination, that there has been some discrepancies is well founded.
5. It is also relevant to point out at this stage that after the preliminary examination was over, nearly 31 candidates, who have participated in the examinations, have raised some objections in the light of Clause 42 of the instructions to the candidates issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
6. The said Clause 42 of the instructions to the candidates, which confers certain rights on the participants in the preliminary examination to point out any defects in the question booklets to the Service Commission so as to enable the Service Commission to take proper steps, is as follows:-
"Candidates are advised to write to the Controller of Examinations on items or question, the candidate considers defective in the Question Booklet within three days from the date of examination. In such representations, Register Number, Name and address of the candidate, Question Number, Question Booklet Series etc. should invariably be quoted. Any representation received after three days from the date of examination or without any of the required particulars will receive no attention."
It is true that as per the said clause, the participants in the preliminary examination have right to point out the mistakes or defects, which are to be exercised within 3 days from the date of examinations. It is stated that the above said 31 candidates, who have taken part in the preliminary examination, have, in fact, made representations within the stipulated time bringing out some of the defects in the question papers. It is also not in dispute that no one of the 31 candidates, who have raised objections, have approached this Court. A batch of students, who have taken the preliminary examination on 23.12.2007 and who have not made any representations in conformity with Clause 42 of the Notification, have approached this Court by filing writ petitions in the same terms as the present writ petitioners. Those writ petitions came to be disposed of on 31.07.2008. While disposing of the said writ petitions, this Court has taken a stand that the technical rule that objection should be filed within a period of 3 days, as stipulated under Clause 42 of the Instructions to the Candidates, should not stand in the way of rendering substantial justice in cases, where the participants in the preliminary examination were able to bring out some of the patent errors either in the examination or in the manner of self-valuation. In that view of the matter, this Court has passed final orders permitting the petitioners therein to appear for final examinations, which are to be conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008 with direction to the petitioners therein to make proper representations clarifying that on such representations, it is for the Service Commission to refer the same to Experts and take a final decision. The following were the directions issued by this Court while disposing of the batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.12127 of 2008 batch dated 31.07.2008:-
" 18. 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 some time 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."
While disposing of the said writ petitions with the above said directions, a restriction has been imposed by this Court stating that the benefit of the directions should be made applicable and restricted only to the writ petitioners therein and such direction should not be treated as a general direction, since the learned Judge felt that such general direction could not be given at a belated stage especially when the main written examination is to be conducted on 16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008.
7. However, the present writ petitions came to be filed after the disposal of the above said batch of writ petitions and are placed before this Court for a decision. Before adverting to the various arguments advanced by the respective counsels including Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, it is relevant to refer to some of the passages in the counter affidavit filed by the Service Commission in the earlier batch of writ petitions stated above. This is relevant because in these batch of writ petitions, the Service Commission has not filed any counter affidavit and it is anybody's knowledge that the Service Commission cannot take any stand other than what was already taken by them in the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed in the batch of cases, while the facts stated above in nutshell were not disputed, the respondent Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has very fairly stated in paragraph No.5 as follows:-
"In this connection, it is submitted that the Commission has never failed to rectify any discrepancies whenever such discrepancies came to the knowledge of the Commission. In the same way, for the present recruitment, it has come to the knowledge of the Commission about certain discrepancies in the key for some of the questions."
In this connection, it is submitted that the Commission has never failed to rectify any discrepancies whenever such discrepancies came to the knowledge of the Commission, but it has now came to the knowledge of the Commission about the discrepancies in the key for some of the questions. The said stand taken by the respondent in the counter affidavit makes it clear that even though the Service Commission has not so far released or disclosed the key answers, while exercising its Constitutional function, it has found some discrepancies in the key answers. Therefore, it is not necessary for this Court to go into each and every one of the question even though the respective counsels have taken enormous efforts to bring to the notice of this Court about various discrepancies. Suffice to mention some of those questions, which are not only shocking and alarming to us, only as examples. It is also relevant at this stage to point out that the questions have been given both in English as well as in Tamil and it is also not in dispute that Tamil translation of English question is the same and without any change.
Question No.57, which is as follows:-
The founder of the Newspaper "The Hindu" was
(a) S.Subramania Iyer (b) Kasturi Ranga Iyengar
(b) S.Satyamurthy (c) T.K.Madhavan All the answers given are patently wrong. The founder of the newspaper is G.Subramania Iyer, whose name is not finding place in any one of the 4 answers.
Question No.130, which is as follows:-
The Pallava rulers believed in
(a) Jainism (b) Buddhism
(c) Hinduism (d) Shaivism Even though the correct answer is (d) Shaivism, it is doubted by some of the candidates that the Service Commission, in the key answer, has given it as Jainism. Of course, it is for the respondent Service Commission to check up as to the correctness of the said averment made by some of the petitioners.
Question No.135, which is as follows:-
The emergency provisions of the Constitution of India was borrowed from
(a) Government of India Act, 1935
(b)USSR
(c) USA
(d) Weimar Constitution of Germany The answer for this question could be Government of India Act, 1935 as well as Weimar Constitution of Germany, as it is asserted by the Text Book of Constitution of India by D.D.Basu.
Question No.137, which is as follows:-
The final work of UPSC in recruitment process is
(a) Selection (b) Appointment
(c) Certification (d) Placement A doubt has arisen as far as this question is concerned that while UPSC has taken its final work as "selection process", the Constitution of India uses the word, "Certifies". Therefore, there are 2 correct answers, which can be construed distinctively.
Question No.140, which is as follows:-
In which year, for the first time was no-confidence motion moved in the Parliament?
(a) 1960 (b) 1963 (c) 1964 (d) 1967
A question is raised as to the no-confidence motion against which character, whether it is for removal of Speaker or against the Council of Ministers, because there was a no-confident motion moved in the Parliament for the removal of a Speaker in 1954 and there was a no-confidence motion moved against the Council of Ministers in 1963 and therefore, the technical validity of this question is raised by a candidate based on the Literature on the Constitutional Government in India by the author, MV Pylee. Question No.169, which is as follows:-
The Industrial Tribunals are consisted of person of the rank
(a) Supreme Court Judge (b) Chief Justice of Supreme Court
(c) High Court Judge (d) Sessions Court Judge By referring to a website of the Ministry of Labour and Employment, the Government of India has stated that the Presiding Office of Industrial Tribunal should have been either a District Judge or an Additional District Judge for three years and alternatively, he should have held the post of Judge of a High Court.
8. These are only some of the instances, which are taken from the objections raised by few of the petitioners in their affidavits. There are many more instances, which are stated by the petitioners, of course, which are relating to the probabilities, suspicions and surmises and therefore, it is not necessary to extract those questions. But the fact remains that even though it is stated by the Service Commission in its counter affidavit in the previous batch of cases that there has been many discrepancies in the setting of question papers and there are obvious mistakes in the key answers also, about which, this Court is not able to lay its hands, since the key answers have not been placed before this Court either in the previous batch or in this batch of cases.
9. Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, has contended that as the learned Single Judge of this Court, while disposing of the batch of writ petitions previously, in the ultimate paragraph held that the benefit of the said order should be restricted only to the writ petitioners and it should not be treated as general directions, if this Court decides to extend the said benefits given in the earlier batch, in fairness, it should be referred to a larger Bench. Since this question has been raised by a learned Senior Counsel, as a matter of preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of this Court, it is necessary to deal with the said contention.
10. First of all, on a reading of the order of the learned Single Judge in the batch of writ petitions, it is crystal clear that the learned Judge has come to a definite conclusion that the rights given to the parties to exercise, as per the Notification under Clause 42, viz., within 3 days, which is technical, which cannot stand in the right of rendering justice, considering the over all situations of the cases. A specific contention was put forth before this Court in the earlier batch that the students, who have written examinations based on the notifications issued by the Service Commission, are bound by the Notification and therefore, it is not open to the students to come back or act against the Notification and this Court should not permit such an attitude. While dealing with the said contention, the learned Judge has elaborately dealt with the same by taking into consideration the various case laws, but ultimately decided that in these matters, when once the malpractice has been revealed to limelight, even to a limited extent, the ultimate goal of the Court is to render substantial justice and the technicalities should not stand in the way of rendering such substantial justice. This Court has taken note of the fact that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is conducting these examinations after a long period of 7 years and therefore, any narrow meaning given to the various terms in the Notification would only destroy the very concept of rendering justice to the participants. In fact, the learned Judge has also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurunanak Dev University -vs- Saumil Garg reported in 2005 (13) SCC 749, wherein the Supreme Court has asserted in clear definite terms that the paper setters have legal duty to give correct key answers and in the event of the key answers having found to be wrong, the same cannot be taken light by a Court and a consequential order should be passed. The Supreme Court has held in paragraph No.6 as follows:-
"The questions posed must have only one correct answer out of the four options given. Likewise, there is responsibility on those, who finalise the key answers. If none of the answers is correct, it becomes their duty to say that none of the answers is correct, so that if any remedial action is to be taken, it should be taken before the answers are valuated. It is evident that on both these aspects, there was serious lapse which resulted in litigation which is otherwise avoidable."
11. The nature of care, which should be taken while preparing the key answers, was again reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Manish Ujwal -vs- Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University reported in (2005) 13 SCC 744 and that was the view taken by the Supreme Court even much earlier in Kanpur University -vs- Samir Gupta reported in AIR 1983 SC 1230.
12. In fact, in a similar situation, when this Court has found that the key answers were wrong, a direction was given to the University to revalue the answer papers for certain questions even though under the Scheme of University, revaluation of answer papers were not permitted. That was in D.Shylaja -vs- the Secretary to Government and others reported in 2004 WLR 639. Likewise, in G.Nanthini -vs- The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai-25, a Division Bench of this Court, in a batch of cases in W.A.No.2476 of 2004 etc. dated 02.08.2004, has again affirmed that there can be only one key answer and approved the order of the Courts in doing such exercise and sometimes, in the interest of career of the students directing the award of mark for more than one question. It was after exhaustively considering the legal issue on the point of getting key answers and the manner of setting up the questions, the learned Judge has given the above said directions in the said batch of cases.
13. I am in total agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Judge in the batch of cases referred to above. Therefore, there is no question of this Court taking a different view from the one taken earlier. In such view of the matter, the question of referring this issue to a larger Bench does not arise. Merely because in the previous batch of cases, the relief given was restricted to only those writ petitioners, it does not mean that the other Court exercising the same jurisdiction has no right to follow the same or it cannot be said that when such right is exercised by a Court of equal jurisdiction, such Court will be going against the order of the learned Single Judge merely because there was a restriction in the earlier batch of cases. There are many more reasons for this Court to grant relief to the petitioners in this batch. First of all, there is absolutely no distinction between the petitioners in the earlier batch, who have been granted relief and the present petitioners, as seen in the circumstance that no one of these petitioners either in this batch or previous batch have made any representation pointing out the defect in the answer papers or the question in conformity with the regulation 42 of the Notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, viz., within 3 days from the date of writing of the preliminary examination. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners have taken up examinations believing that the question papers are correct and the Service Commission would have given the correct key answers. As correctly pointed out by many of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, it was only after April 2008, when the results of the preliminary examination were published by the Service Commission, by seeing the marks granted to the petitioners, they have entertained doubt about the genuineness of the either questions or the key answers. Therefore, it was on the evaluation by the students themselves, which cannot be held to be either illegal or unlawful, they have raised suspicion about the conduct of the examination. In the chart, which is to be followed in respect of the present petitioners and which I have produced below, an analysis of the marks obtained by the candidates belonging to various category of social status would show that so many of the students were not able to come to the cut off point by one or two marks and therefore, there is every justification for the petitioners to approach this Court since their valuable right of getting employment is certainly affected, if it is ultimately found that a mistake has crept in, in the process of selection by way of examination by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. It is also relevant to point out at this stage that in fact, the order of the learned Judge in the earlier batch has been given effect to by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission itself, in the sense, that it is now admitted that pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the petitioners in the previous batch of writ petitions are all permitted to appear for final examination to be conducted on 16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008. In such view of the matter, I do not see any reason in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitions have to be referred to the larger Bench. It is also not in dispute, as on today, that the order passed by the learned Judge in the previous batch stands final, since the same has not been challenged, which is also not possible due to the reason that admittedly the direction given by the learned Judge has been given effect to by the Service Commission even by permitting the petitioners in the said batch to undergo the main examination. A perusal of the affidavits filed by the writ petitioners in this batch reveals the following particulars regarding the marks secured by the petitioners and the required marks as per the details furnished by the Service Commission itself. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has published the details of cut off marks for various category of students in respect of the preliminary examination conducted for Group-I examination of the year 2006-2007, which are as follows:-
CATEGORY MARK GENERAL TURN (GENERAL) 210.00 GENERAL TURN (WOMEN) 195.00 BACKWARD CLASSES (GENERAL) 201.00 BACKWARD CLASSES (WOMEN) 187.50 MOST BACKWARD CLASSES/DENOTIFIED COMMUNITIES (GENERAL) 196.50 MOST BACKWARD CLASSES/DENOTIFIED COMMUNITIES (WOMEN) 180.00 SCHEDULED CASTE (GENERAL) 195.00 SCHEDULED CASTE (WOMEN) 178.50 SCHEDULED TRIBE (GENERAL) 156.00 SCHEDULED TRIBE (WOMEN)
---
The following are the particulars about the present petitioners:-
S.No. W.P.No. Name of the petitioner Social Status Cut off mark Marks obtained
1.
18839/2008 A.Ramesh S.C. 195.00 187.50
2. 18840/2008 P.Sridhar S.C. 195.00 193.50
3. 18841/2008 S.Uma Maheswari MBC(W) 180.00 178.50
4. 18842/2008 C.Ravi Shankar MBC 196.50 193.50
5. 18911/2008 Veerapillai Ramesh BC(G) 201.00 192.00
6. 18912/2008 V.Velayutham BC(G) 201.00 192.00
7. 18913/2008 R.Vivekanandan MBC(G) 196.50 190.50
8. 18914/2008 S.Raja MBC(G) 196.50 195.00
9. 18881/2008 P.Adhavanj Seral BC(G) 201.00 195.00
10. 18882/2008 B.S.Saravana Kumar BC(G) 201.00 192.00
11. 18883/2008 M.Dharmarajan MBC(G) 196.50 190.50
12. 18884/2008 V.Karthikeyan B.C.(G) 201.00 199.50
13. 18885/2008 P.Rajkuar BC(G) 201.00 198.00
14. 18886/2008 V.Arivukkannan BC(G) 201.00 192.00
15. 18887/2008 R.L.Arun Prasad BC(G) 201.00 195.00
16. 18888/2008 R.L.Arun Prasad BC(G) 201.00 195.00
17. 18889/2008 D.Ganesh Babu BC(G) 201.00 196.50
18. 18890/2008 R.Kalpana BC(G) 187.50 186.00
19. 18953/2008 M.Packianathan SC 195.00 192.00
20. 18955/2008 B.Saranya BC(W) 187.50 180.00
21. 18948/2008 G.Jamuna BC(W) 187.50 172.50
22. 18949/2008 K.Nepolean MBC 196.50 190.50
23. 18950/2008 Sri Nithya Mahaprabhu MBC 196.50 184.50
24. 18951/2008 S.Mageshwaran MBC 196.50 195.00
25. 18952/2008 M.Dhandapani BC 201.00 198.00
26. 18866/2008 S.Srinivasan MBC 196.50 190.50
27. 18867/2008 K.Ezhil Rani MBC(W) 180.00 175.00
28. 18868/2008 M.S.Sathish Kumar BC(G) 201.00 199.50
29. 18869/2008 K.P.Madhava Janarthanan MBC(G) 196.50 186.00
30. 18870/2008 R.Mohan BC(G) 201.00 195.00
31. 18871/2008 P.Vadivelan MBC(G) 196.50 189.00
32. 19121/2008 P.Mahalakshmi SC(W) 178.50 175.50
33. 19122/2008 N.Amudha Sujatha MBC(W) 180.00 175.50
34. 19123/2008 S.Subramanian MBC(G) 196.50 193.50
35. 19124/2008 K.Imayavaramban MBC(G) 196.50 195.00
36. 19125/2008 P.Ponnuchami SC 195.00 193.00
37. 19171/2008 B.Geetha SC(W) 178.50 174.00
38. 19151/2008 K.Jayakumar MBC 196.50 189.00
39. 19152/2008 M.Senthiappan BC(G) 201.00 195.00
40. 19223/2008 R.Sumathi MBC(W) 180.00 178.50
41. 19224/2008 P.Senthil Kumar MBC(G) 196.50 150.00
42. 19226/2008 P.Anbazhagan SC(G) 195.00 180.00
43. 19227/2008 J.Ganesh Kumar BC 201.00 196.50
44. 19146/2008 G.Sumathi SC(W) 178.50 177.00
45. 19147/2008 D.Viswanathan SC(G) 195.00 189.00
46. 19148/2008 P.Kalidass BC(G) 201.00 193.50
47. 19149/2008 P.Agoramoorthy MBC(G) 196.50 195.00
48. 19150/2008 J.N.Bhargavi FC 207.00 189.00
49. 19134/2008 M.Selvaraj SC(G) 195.00 193.50
50. 19135/2008 G.Elamurugan BC(G) 201.00 196.50
51. 19136/2008 K.Mayavanathan BC(G) 201.00 199.50
52. 19137/2008 S.Jegan MBC(G) 196.50 195.00
53. 19138/2008 R.Sathish Kumar BC(G) 201.00 196.50
54. 19243/2008 S.Janakiraman SC(G) 195.00 187.50
55. 19244/2008 R.Nagendran MBC(G) 196.50 192.00
56. 19245/2008 K.Jayakumar MBC(G) 196.50 189.00
57. 19246/2008 K.Vijayakumar BC(G) 201.00 195.00
58. 19247/2008 B.Manikandan BC(G) 201.00 193.50
59. 19248/2008 S.Krishna Kumar BC(G) 201.00 195.00
60. 18714/2008 John Kennedy BC(G) 201.00 199.50
61. 18780/2008 K.Dhakshnamurthy BC(G) 201.00 198.00
62. 19306/2008 P.Nithya BC(W) 187.00 180.00
63. 19307/2008 P.Senthil Kumar BC(G) 201.00 196.50
64. 19306/2008 K.Senthil Kumar SC(G) 195.00 183.00
65. 19225/2008 S.Sivarajvel MBC(G) 196.50 193.00
66. 19288/2008 M.Chandrasekar OC 210.00 204.00
67. 18974/2008 R.Sheela Rani SC(W) 178.50 175.00
68. 19264/2008 C.Alwyn Deva Mano BC(G) 201.00 198.00
69. 19265/2008 S.Balaji BC(G) 201.00 198.00
70. 19266/2008 A.Senthil Kumar MBC(G) 196.50 190.50
71. 19254/2008 P.Sivakumar BC(G) 201.00 187.50
72. 19255/2008 A.Elaiyaraja MBC(G) 196.50 172.50
73. 19256/2008 S.Saravana Kumar Choudry BC(W) 201.00 184.50
74. 19257/2008 A.Padmashini BC(W) 201.00 184.50
75. 19258/2008 K.Ganesan BC(G) 201.00 193.50
76. 19259/2008 S.Thangadurai SC(G) 195.00 178.50
77. 19260/2008 B.Satish Kumar SC(G) 195.00 193.50
14. The respondent Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, being a Constitutional Authority, is constituted for the purpose of conducting examination for appointments to the services of the State as enshrined under Article 320(1) of the Constitution of India. Article 41 of the Constitution of India included under Chapter 4 of the Constitution as Directive Principles of State Policy confers right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases, as follows:-
"41.Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases:-
The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want."
15. The above object of the said provisions of the Constitution is not only conferring right to work, but also the right to have assistance in cases of unemployment. The said provisions of the Constitution have been interpreted by the Supreme Court in more than one occasion as comparable to the right to live with dignity, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as one of the fundamental rights, as it was observed in Consumer Education and Research Centre -vs- Union of India reported in AIR 1995 SC 922.
16. The respondent Service Commission, performing the constitutional function, is expected to be fair in its functions, since it certainly deals with the larger number of population, which has direct consequences to the problem of unemployment. In such circumstances, the terms of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in the previous batch of cases and also some of the concrete instances of the discrepancies pointed out in the question papers and probabilised wrong key answers, which would have been given by the Service Commission, makes it very clear that the suspicion of these petitioners about the correctness of valuation is well founded. Therefore, it cannot be said as if the benefits given by this Court in the batch of cases stated above were given merely on sympathetic ground. The respondent Service Commission, who appears to have taken some time in the earlier batch of cases, have admittedly not produced even the key answers to the Court and even as on date, the said status stands. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, that the key answers are kept secretly since it is a very important document, is again unfounded. When once evaluation of papers have been completed, there is no point in continuously holding that the key answers are very secret. In my considered view, while exercising the constitutional function under Article 320(1) of the Constitution of India, the Service Commission ought to have produced the key answers in fairness before this Court so as to enable this Court to come to a proper conclusion. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that by following the earlier direction given by this Court in the batch of cases, of course, with certain modifications, certainly no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent Public Service Commission. On the other hand, all the materials placed before the Court by which there is absolutely no doubt that there has been some discrepancies in the valuation process as well as the key answers, it is only by not giving benefits to these petitioners, great prejudice will be caused certainly to the petitioners, since admittedly, the Service Commission has proceeded to conduct examination process after a period of 7 years and these candidates have already grown up in their age and if the benefits, to which they are entitled, is not conferred by this Court, at this point of time, certainly they will lose their right to live with human dignity in this Country which is the goal of the Constitution of India. By directing the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to permit the petitioners to participate in the written final examination with a direction to verify the correctness or otherwise of the representations made by the petitioner in the light of the facts stated above, the gross injustice, which are likely to be caused to the petitioners, can be averted. At the same time, I am of the considered view that it is not for this Court to find out the correctness or otherwise of various questions or answers, since the Courts are not experts especially in the circumstance that the Service Commission has been constituted as a body with various experts performing constitutional functions and normally no suspicion is entertained against the functions of the constitutional authorities. This Court would have otherwise extended the benefits, which are to be given to these petitioners, to the other candidates also, but the same is restricted to these petitioners before this Court due to the reason that such an exercise may result in grave prejudice to the administration and such exercise may be unwieldy and unworkable.
17. 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 16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008 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 14.08.2008. It is made clear that allowing the petitioners to write the examinations 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 14.08.2008. As fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Public Service Commission, on submission of such representation by individual petitioner, 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. Connected M.Ps. are closed. No costs.
bs/ To The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Government Estate, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002