Madras High Court
S.Madhavan vs The Secretary on 8 December, 2011
Author: D.Hariparanthaman
Bench: D.Hariparanthaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 8.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN Writ Petition No.4487 of 2007 1. S.Madhavan 2. P.Sivakumar 3. P.Anbu Selvam 4. P.Vijayaraja 5. S.Prem Manohar William 6. R.Arunagiri ... Petitioners -Vs- The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Govt. Estate, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. ... Respondent Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Honourable Court as stated therein. For petitioners : Mr.R.Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.M.Devendran for TNPSC ORDER
The petitioners appeared for Combined Subordinate Service I Examinations for the year 1996-1999. Initially, the respondent conducted the examination in the year 1999. However, the same was cancelled for some reason and the same is not relevant now.
2. Ultimately, the examinations were again conducted in 2000. The petitioners participated in the examinations that were conducted in 2000.
3. In fact, all the six petitioners were selected in the written examinations. Thereafter, they passed oral test in 2001. After oral test, three among six were selected and given posting orders.
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that some wrong key answers were feeded in the computer and this resulted in causing prejudice to the petitioners. If the wrong is set-right, three persons who were selected ultimately, could be placed at higher rank and three others, who were not selected, could have been selected.
5. Hence they filed O.A.No.5180 of 2001 (W.P.No.4487 of 2007) seeking to set aside the written examination and selection for Combined Subordinate Service I Examinations for the year 1996-1999.
6. The respondent filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations.
7. Heard both sides.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has heavily relied on para No.6(L) of the affidavit in Original Application and submits that answer keys were wrongly feeded in the computer and therefore the same should be set-right by setting aside the written examination and selection.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that there was no illegality and he brought to my notice para 16 of the reply affidavit. It is also submitted that para 6(L) of the affidavit in Original Application is very vague and therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
10. I have considered the submissions made on either side.
11. Para 6(L) of the Original Application is relevant and the same is heavily relied on by the petitioners. Para 6(L) is extracted hereunder:-
"6(L). The applicants humbly submit that the wrong answer keys were feeded for 'B' 'C' and 'D' series paper for History Optional resulting in more than 45 to 60 question fetching 50 marks."
12. Para 16 of the reply affidavit is the answer to the para 6(L) of the Original Application and the same is extracted hereunder:-
"16. With reference to the averments made in Grounds (1) to (6) of the application, the submissions made in the preceding paras, may be read as part and parcel of this submission. The selection process was followed as per the procedure announced in the notification. The valuation of answer sheets were carried out, in an accurate and in a highly confidential manner. Even the key answers of B, C and D Series of the 'History' optional subject's question paper are also verified and found correct. The entire selection process, is within rules and valid in law. All the six applicants have secured the sufficient marks in the Main Written Examination and were summoned for Oral Test. This will prove that the selection process is fair in all aspects. Therefore, the act of the Commission, is not in violation of principles of natural justice, laid down in Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. As the Commission's selection process is fair and according to the established rules, there is nothing illegal or unjustifiable or unconstitutional."
13. In my view, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioners have not come with any categorical averment as to the alleged wrong answer keys being feeded in the computer. It is vaguely suggested that about 45-60 answer keys could have been wrongly feeded. The same is denied by the respondent.
14. Furthermore, the allegation was over long back and persons were appointed. It is not stated as to who could be affected if the writ petition is allowed and those persons are not made as parties in this writ petition.
15. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
8.12.2011 Index : yes/no.
Internet: yes/no.
vks D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
vks Copy to:-
The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Govt. Estate, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.W.P.No.4487 of 2007
8.12.2011