Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to produce the petitioner's original OMR answer sheet No. http://www.judis.nic.in N.Prabhakaran v. The Member Secretary, TNUSRB 325709 ('D' category question sheet serial No.1249336) in respect of the petitioner's application registration No.2111560 before this Court and after verification of the same, if found eligible, admit the petitioner to the next level selection process of appointment to the posts of Sub Inspector of Police (Taluk, Armed Reserve [Men & Women/Transgender] & Tamilnadu Special Police [Men]-2019 as per Advertisement No.2/2019 dated 08.03.2019 issued by the 1st respondent on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 12.06.2020.

2.The respondent Recruitment Board has issued notification No. 2/2019 dated 08.03.2019 inviting applications for the direct recruitment for the post of Sub Inspector of Police '2019. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner applied for the said recruitment. Accordingly, as per the selection procedure, he participated in the written examination. In the written examination, which is an objective type, 140 questions were totally asked, each question carry 0.50 marks and the total marks is 70. According to the petitioner, he has written correct answer for 96 questions, thereby he http://www.judis.nic.in N.Prabhakaran v. The Member Secretary, TNUSRB should have been awarded 48 marks out of 70. That apart, in respect of Q.Nos.49, 109 and 120, though he claimed to have written the correct answers, according to the final key answer for D series question paper, which he attended issued by the Recruitment Board, his case is that, even that three questions also should have been awarded marks, as he claimed to have written correct answers.

3. Be that as it may, now the main grievance of the petitioner is that, assuming that the three questions mentioned above are also not eligible to get marks, even then, he would be able to get 48 marks for the 96 questions, since he claimed to have answered 96 questions correctly.

4. In this context, it is the further case of the petitioner that, in the final selection list issued by the respondents dated 16.03.2020, under the Scheduled Caste category, as the petitioner also belongs to Scheduled Caste Community, those who got 48 marks have been selected and in this regard, he relied upon the list of candidates issued by the respondents dated http://www.judis.nic.in N.Prabhakaran v. The Member Secretary, TNUSRB 16.03.2020, where more than 30 candidates, who got 48 marks out of 70, have been included in the selection list under the Scheduled Caste category. Therefore, on that ground, the petitioner has given a representation to the respondents on 12.06.2020, whereby, he sought for the OMR answer script and also consequently wants to award marks for all the 96 questions, since he claimed to have answered correctly. Since the said representation has not been considered so far, the petitioner is before this Court with this writ petition with the above said prayer.

7. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

http://www.judis.nic.in N.Prabhakaran v. The Member Secretary, TNUSRB

8. Admittedly, in the zone of consideration for Scheduled Caste candidates, those who got 48 marks have been selected. In the case of the petitioner, as per the instructions available to the learned Additional Advocate General from the respondents, the petitioner got 46 marks. However, he claimed that, for 96 questions, he has written correct answers, if all the 96 questions, as mentioned by him in the representation, are correctly answered, despite the same, if any mark is left out, the same can very well be verified by the petitioner on seeing the OMR coding sheet and after verification of the same, if he is able to point out that any of the correct answer written by him has not been evaluated properly and marks were not awarded, the same can be very well brought to the notice of the respondents for rectification. At any rate, since the grievance of the petitioner can only be addressed to the first respondent after the self-satisfaction of the petitioner, on going through the OMR coding sheet and making his verification as to whether he has written 96 questions correctly as claimed by him or he has written only 92 questions correctly, for which, 46 marks http://www.judis.nic.in N.Prabhakaran v. The Member Secretary, TNUSRB alone were awarded to him and accordingly, he can bring to the notice of the respondents, if any discrepancy reportedly found out, after verifying the OMR coding sheet of the petitioner.