Madras High Court
B. Ajith Kumar vs Unknown on 31 October, 2023
Author: S. Vaidyanathan
Bench: S. Vaidyanathan
W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.10.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.P. No.30309 of 2023 and W.M.P. No.29897 of 2023
W.P. No.30398 of 2023 and W.M.P. No.30006 of 2023
W.P. No.30504 of 2023 and W.M.P. No.30148 of 2023
W.P. No.31034 of 2023 and W.M.P. No.30682 of 2023
W.P. No.30309 of 2023:
B. Ajith Kumar Petitioner
v
1 The Registrar General
High Court of Madras
Chennai
2 The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
TNPSC Road
Broadway
Chennai Respondents
W.P. No.30398 of 2023:
R. Jaikumar Petitioner
v
1 Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
represented by its Secretary &
Controller of Examination
TNPSC Road
Park Town
Chennai 600 003
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023
2 The Registrar General
Madras High Court
Chennai 600 104 Respondents
W.P. No.30504 of 2023:
R. Boopathi Raja Petitioner
v
1 Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
represented by its Secretary
Frazer Bridge Road
Chennai 600 003
2 The Registrar (Recruitment)
High Court
Madras 600 104 Respondents
W.P. No.31034 of 2023:
Pavithra Priyadarshini Petitioner
v
1 The Registrar General
Madras High Court
Chennai 600 104
2 The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
TNPSC Road
V.O.C. Nagar
Park Town
Chennai 600 003 Respondents
Prayer in W.P. No.30309 of 2023:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to publish the result of
Civil Judge examination for Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service conducted on
19.08.2023 in respect of Notification No.12 of 2023 dated 01.06.2023 in the
same transparent manner as having been done by the first respondent in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
selection of Civil Judge in Puducherry Judicial Service in respect of
2/12
W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023
Notification No.34 of 2023 dated 01.03.2023 and conduct the selection
process in a transparent manner.
W.P. No.30398 of 2023:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the preliminary exam
result of the petitioner vide Register No.2801002205 and extend all the
benefits/privilege which the candidates whose registration number is found in
the notification published by the first respondent on 11.10.2023 under the
heading Civil Judge, in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service and evaluate his
main written examination of Civil Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial
Service scheduled to be held on 04.11.2023 and 05.11.2023 as mentioned in
the first respondent notification dated 11.10.2023 by considering his
representation dated 13.10.2023 by making such provision as may be required
and declare his result.
Prayer in W.P. No.30504 of 2023:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to select the petitioner by
treating the OMR sheet of Question Booklet No. as 10203 instead of 00203 in
the preliminary examination held on 19.08.2023 and to extend all
consequential benefits of selection and appointment arising thereto.
Prayer in W.P. No.31034 of 2023:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to release the marks
secured by the petitioner in the preliminary examination for recruitment to the
post of Civil Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service conducted on
19.08.2023.
For petitioner in
W.P. No.30309 of 2023 Mr. S. Vijayakumar
For R1 in Mr. B. Vijay
W.P. No.30309 of 2023 Standing Counsel
For R2 in Mr. R. Bharanidharan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.30309 of 2023 Standing Counsel
-----
3/12
W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023
For petitioner in
W.P. No.30398 of 2023 Mr. S. Saravanakumar
For R1 in Mr. R. Bharanidharan
W.P. No.30398 of 2023 Standing Counsel
For R2 in Mr. B. Vijay
W.P. No.30398 of 2023 Standing Counsel
-----
For petitioner in Mr. L. Chandrakumar
W.P. No.30504 of 2023
For R1 in Mr. R. Bharanidharan
W.P. No.30504 of 2023 Standing Counsel
For R2 in Mr. B. Vijay
W.P. No.30504 of 2023 Standing Counsel
-----
For petitioner in Mr. Sharath Chandran
W.P. No.31034 of 2023
For R1 in Mr. B. Vijay
W.P. No.31034 of 2023 Standing Counsel
For R2 in Mr. R. Bharanidharan
W.P. No.31034 of 2023 Standing Counsel
-----
COMMON ORDER
(made by S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.) The commonality in all the petitioners is that all of them are Civil Judge aspirants who have written the preliminary examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, on 19.08.2023. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/12 W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023 2 Ajith Kumar, the petitioner in W.P. No.30309 of 2023 seeks a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to publish the result of Civil Judge examination for Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service, conducted on 19.08.2023, in a transparent manner, as was done by the first respondent, in the selection of Civil Judges for Puducherry Judicial Service, and conduct the selection process in a transparent manner.
3 Jaikumar, the petitioner in W.P. No.30398 of 2023 seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the result of the Civil Judge examination (preliminary) for Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service, conducted on 19.08.2023 and extend all the benefits/privileges which the candidates who have been selected for the main written examination to be held on 04.11.2023, were given, and evaluate his written examination answer paper (main), as stated by the first respondent in the notification dated 11.10.2023, by considering his representation dated 13.10.2023.
4 Boopathi Raja, the petitioner in W.P. No.30504 of 2023 seeks a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to select him by treating the OMR sheet of question booklet number as 10203 instead of 00203 in the preliminary examination held on 19.08.2023 and to extend all consequential https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis benefits of selection and appointment arising therefrom. 5/12 W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023 5 Pavithra Priyadarshini, the petitioner in W.P. No.31034 of 2023 seeks a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to release the marks secured by her in the preliminary examination conducted on 19.08.2023 for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service.
6 A common counter affidavit dated 27.10.2023 has been filed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in respect of three candidates, viz., Ajith Kumar, Jaikumar and Boopathi Raja.
7 In the case of Ajithkumar, petitioner in W.P. No.30309 of 2023, even though he has written his Question Booklet Number 13283 correctly in numerals in the OMR answer sheet, he has shaded the Question Booklet Number as 03823 instead of 13823 in the OMR answer sheet. Thus, he has committed a mistake in shading his Question Booklet Number.
(emphasis supplied) 8 In the case of Boopathy Raja, petitioner in W.P. No.30504 of 2023, he has also written his Question Booklet Number 10203 in the OMR answer sheet correctly in numerals, but has shaded the same wrongly as 00203 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis in the OMR answer sheet. (emphasis supplied). 6/12 W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023 9 In the case of Jaikumar, petitioner in W.P. No.30398 of 2023, he has written the Question Booklet Number correctly in numerals in the OMR answer sheet, but, has shaded more than one bubble, besides using whitener.
10 As regards Pavithra Priyadarshini, petitioner in W.P. No.31034 of 2023, as per the note submitted by the TNPSC, her OMR answer sheet has been invalidated owing to multiple shading of Question Booklet Number done by her.
11 At the outset, it is necessary to advert to Instruction No.6 of “Instructions to Candidates” given in the OMR answer sheet. The said instruction, in both English and Tamil, reads thus:
“6. In Section-II, the Question Booklet Number should be written and the corresponding bubbles should be shaded. The Question Booklet Number shaded by you in the bubble will be treated as final. If the bubble for Question Booklet Number are incorrectly shaded / improperly shaded / multiple shading / one or more bubble left blank / not in range; then, the answer sheet will be invalidated. gphpt[ IIy; tpdhj; bjhFg;g[ vz;iz rhpahf vGjp mjw;Fhpa tl;l';fis epug;g ntz;Lk;/ eP'f ; s; ve;j tl;l';fis epug;gpa[s;sPhf ; nsh mJnt ,WjpahdjhFk;/ tpdhj;bjhFg;g[ vz; jtwhf epug;gg;gl;oUe;jhy; / xd;Wf;F nkw;gl;l tl;l';fs; epug;gg;gl;oUe;jhy;/xd;W my;yJ mjw;F nkw;gl;l tl;l';fs; fhypahf tplg;gl;oUe;jhy; / Kiwaw;W epug;gg;gl;oUe;jhy; tpilj;jhs; bry;yhjjhf;fg;gLk;/” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/12 W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023
12 From the above, it is clear that if the bubbles for Question Booklet Number are incorrectly shaded or improperly shaded or shaded multiple times or one or more bubbles are left blank or the bubbles are not in range, the OMR answer sheet will be invalidated.
13 According to Mr. Saravana Kumar, learned counsel for Jaikumar, the condition qua multiple shading has not been stated in the hall ticket, but, only in the OMR answer sheet. Even accepting for the sake of argument that the condition qua multiple shading is not stated in the hall ticket, it has got to be presumed that there is incorrect shading, which falls within the ambit of Instruction 6, supra. The learned counsel, in support of his contention that wrong shading cannot result in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, relied on the judgment rendered by one of us (SVNJ) in T.Vellisubbaian v The Director, Department of School Education and another1, wherein, it was held that non-filling or non-shading is not fatal, if the candidate is otherwise eligible. Be it noted, in the said case, perhaps, there were no instructions stipulated as in the present case, which have been extracted in paragraph 11, supra. In other words, probably, in that case, if the bubble for the Question Booklet Number had been left blank, there was no requirement to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1 W.P. (MD) No.2406 of 2015 decided on 14.06.2015 8/12 W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023 reject the applicant's candidature. But, in the cases on hand, Instruction 6, extracted supra, stipulates, in no uncertain terms, the instances in which an applicant's OMR answer sheet will be considered as invalidated. Hence, the judgment relied on by Mr. Saravana Kumar is distinguishable on facts and as such, cannot be of any avail to the petitioner.
14 That apart, the OMR answer sheet is printed and handed over to the candidate concerned. The original OMR answer sheet pertaining to Ajith Kumar, Boopathy Raja and Jaikumar were produced before this Court. From a perusal of the same, it is discernible that it contains columns such as serial number, name and register number of the candidate, subject, centre, venue, date and session along with space for pasting photograph. So, the question of handing over another OMR sheet is not possible even assuming for the sake of argument that the request of the candidate to the invigilator to hand over a new answer sheet is to be accepted.
15 Mr. B. Vijay, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court drew the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v Mahendra Singh2. A reading of the same would make it clear that filling up of the application and also attempting of the answer sheet have to be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 C.A. No. 4807 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.19886 of 2019) decided on 25.07.2022 9/12 W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023 done in the manner so prescribed. It has further been held in the said judgment that even if the mistake in the filling up of the OMR answer sheet has crept into due to inadvertence, the candidature of the applicant should be rejected.
16 In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the petitioners who have incorrectly shaded the bubbles in the OMR answer sheets, are not entitled to any relief.
In the result, all the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed, sans costs. Connected W.M.Ps. are closed. The petitioners' OMR answer sheets submitted by the TNPSC in a sealed cover were returned to the official of the TNPSC in the Open Court.
(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 31.10.2023 cad https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/12 W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023 To 1 The Registrar General High Court of Madras Chennai 2 The Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission TNPSC Road Broadway Chennai https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/12 W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023 S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and K. RAJASEKAR., J.
cad Common order in W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023 ` 31.10.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/12