Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2(ii). Some petitions e.g., W.P.No.30794, 30795 and 30796 of 2008 sought the examination to be conducted as per the directions issued in W.P. No.12127 of 2008. W.P. No.12127 of 2008 was the first round of petition by the unsuccessful candidates and it was decided by N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. on 31.7.2008, wherein the learned single Judge had directed appointment of an Expert Committee, since according to the learned Judge some of the questions were confusing and some of the answers in the Preliminary Examination were not correctly assessed.

10. Some of the candidates who had participated in their Preliminary Examination raised doubts about the correctness of the answers. They, however, formed this opinion only after the declaration of the results of the Preliminary Examination on 25.4.2008 when they discussed the issue among themselves and on the basis of self-evaluation. That led some of the candidates, numbering 31, to file Writ Petition No.12127 of 2008 etc. as a batch. They raised doubts either regarding the validity of the questions or the correctness of the key answers. That batch of writ petitions came up before a learned single Judge of this Court (N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.) and on 31.7.2008, the learned single Judge issued the following directions :-

12. It appears that thereafter, some other candidates filed Writ Petition Nos.18780, 18888 and 19121 of 2008 etc. as a batch. They again questioned the validity of some of the questions and the correctness of the key answers. This batch of writ petitions came up before P. Jyothimani, J. The learned single Judge was of the view that the suspicion in the minds of the candidates that there had been some discrepancies, was well founded. The learned Judge referred to some of the questions and the key answers corresponding to those questions and according to the learned Judge, some of them were wrong answers. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge felt that the 77 petitioners who had filed the batch of writ petitions before him also deserved the participation in the Main Written Examination since they had received only a few marks less than the cut-off marks received by some 1750 candidates who were declared successful in the Preliminary Examination. The learned Judge was of the view that if these candidates were being denied participation only because of the errors on the part of the examining body, at least those who will get marks more than the cut-off marks after the report of the Expert Committee appointed under the order of N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. should be allowed to write the Main Written Examination.

18. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants and TNPSC :

Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel and other counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that once it was held that there was an error in some of the answers, the entire examination ought to be held as vitiated and should, therefore, be set aside. As against this submission, Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned senior counsel for the Commission pointed out that the grievance with respect to the denial of participation in the Main Written Examination was made by only 125 candidates, which was on the basis of an allegedly wrong assessment of some answers. He pointed out that the examination was a massive exercise. Some 85,913 candidates had appeared in this examination, out of which 1796 candidates obtained the necessary cut-off marks in the Preliminary Examination. Further in view of the orders passed by N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. and P. Jyothimani, J. and in view of the report of the Expert Committee received thereafter, 25 candidates out of these 125 were treated to have obtained the cut-off marks and passed the Preliminary Examination. N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. and P. Jyothimani, J. had in terms restricted the relief to only these candidates. The direction of both these learned Judges restricting the relief were not challenged in any way by any of the candidates. That apart, according to Mr.Gopalan, the restrictive direction was well justified, since the relief could be granted only to those who had approached the Court. This was clearly reflected in the order of N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. and also in the order of P. Jyothimani, J., which have been quoted above. It was faintly suggested on behalf of the appellants that some of the 1796 candidates who had passed the Preliminary Examination were treated as passed on the basis of wrong answers. Mr. Gopalan submitted that at no point of time it had been earlier canvassed on behalf of any of the unsuccessful candidates that some of these 1796 candidates be excluded for any such reason. Their endeavour has all throughout been to include themselves in the Main Written Examination. That has already been permitted and the 125 candidates were permitted additionally to write the Main Written Examination though only 25 could be held eligible for assessment in the main examination. Having accepted the orders passed by two learned Judges as above, it was not permissible for the appellants now to turn back and say for the first time that whether they are selected or not, these 1796 candidates should not be treated as having passed the Preliminary Examination, and that the result of the Preliminary Examination itself be cancelled.