Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.Heard Mr.V.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned Standing Counsel, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

5.Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent drew the attention of this Court to the recruitment notification and in particular, to Clause 14(l) and would submit that as per the said Clause, any request from candidates for furnishing of their marks or answer keys before completion of the entire selection process, will not be entertained by the respondent Commission. According to him, having accepted to the said conditions, the petitioner cannot seek for a direction to furnish his marks pertaining to his preliminary written examination for the said posts. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent also drew the attention of this Court to the Full Bench Judgment of this Court dated 18.02.2020 passed in W.P. Nos.10010 of 2015 and 3611 of 2020 in the case of Vidya Devarajan and K.Visu vs. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and in particular, he referred https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to paragraph Nos.21 to 24 of the said Full Bench Judgment and would submit that the Full Bench has also held that once the candidates have accepted the conditions of the recruitment notification and they have participated in the selection process, they are estopped from challenging the different stages of selection. According to him, only after the entire selection process gets completed, the petitioner if aggrieved can challenge his non- selection.

After conclusion of the entire selection process, relevant particulars of all candidates who had applied for recruitment to the post shall be made available on the Commission's website.'

9.Admittedly, the selection process has not been completed by the respondent Commission. Only the preliminary examination has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis been completed and selected candidates have been called for the main examination. There are further stages in the selection process to be completed by the respondent Commission. When the recruitment notification makes it clear that the Commission shall not publish the final answer key until the completion of the entire selection process, the petitioner is now estopped at this stage from challenging his non-selection in the main examination. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vidya Devarajan and K.Visu vs. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission dated 18.02.2020 passed in W.P. Nos.10010 of 2015 and 3611 of 2020 has held as follows:

24.The instructions to candidates form part of the application for selection to the post of Civil Judge. The instructions are in the nature of rules of selection akin to conditions in a prospectus. The candidates have accepted the conditions and participated in the selection process.

The instructions to candidates clearly bar information being divulged as regards causes of their failure in their test, that too, before the completion of the selection process. Therefore, the petitioner is estopped from arguing contrary to the instructions. To ensure purity in the oral test and unbias the evaluation, marks secured by the candidate in the written examination should not be disclosed till the completion of the selection process.'

10.As seen from paragraphs 21 to 24 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment referred to supra, it is clear that once the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis candidates have accepted the conditions and participated in the selection process and the recruitment notification clearly bars information being divulged till the selection process is completed, the question of an unsuccessful candidate challenging his non-selection for the main examination will not arise. If the writ petition of this nature is entertained at this stage that too before the completion of the selection process, it will open the flood gates ultimately leading to the derailment of the selection process resulting in affecting public interest.