Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 2917
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. JYOTHIMANI
John Kennedy
Versus
The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Government Estate
W.P.Nos.18714, 18780,18839 to 18842, 18866 to 18871, 18911 to 18914, 18881 to 18890, 18948 to 18953, 18955, 18974, 19121 to 19125, 19134 to 19138, 19146 to 19152, 19171, 19223 to 19227, 19243 to 19248, 19254 to 19260, 19264 to 19266, 19288, 19305 to 19307 of 2008 and connected M.Ps.
Decided on : 13-08-2008
For the Petitioner:S. Silambannan, S.C., N. Umapathi, C.K. Chandrasekar for M/s. Row and Reddy, C. Sivakumar, G.R. Prasad, P.K. Rajesh Praveenkumar, A. Mohamed Ismail, S. Udayakumar, Ms. E. Balasharmila, M/s. G. Vijay Anand, Associates, R.Y. George Williams, V.P. Rajendran, M. Rajasekar, N. Velmurugan, Ms. B. Jayanthi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.T. Gopalan, S.C., for M/s. C.N.G. Ezhilarasi for T.N.P.S.C.
The duty of the Service Commission to rectify discrepancies in questions and key answers, and the right to work, education, and public assistance as enshrined in the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission - Preliminary Examination - Article 320(1) of the Constitution of India - 41. Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases - Consumer Education and Research Centre -vs-Union of India - Gurunanak Dev University -vs-Saumil Garg - Manish Ujwal -vs-Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University - Kanpur University -vs-Samir Gupta - D. Shylaja -vs-the Secretary to Government and others - G. Nanthini -vs-The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai-25
Fact of the Case:
The case involved writ petitions relating to the preliminary examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for Group I Services in the year 2006-2007. The petitioners raised doubts about the validity of the questions and the correctness of the key answers prepared by the Service Commission after the declaration of results.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspicion of the petitioners about discrepancies in the examination was well founded. It held that the technical rule of filing objections within 3 days should not stand in the way of rendering substantial justice. The court directed the Service Commission to permit the petitioners to participate in the final examinations and to verify the correctness of representations made by the petitioners.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of questions and correctness of key answers in the preliminary examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the Service Commission to rectify discrepancies in questions and key answers. It cited various legal principles and judgments to support the right to work, education, and public assistance as enshrined in the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court directed the Service Commission to permit the petitioners to participate in the final examinations, verify the correctness of representations, and make final decisions based on the experts' opinion. It clarified that the decision of the Service Commission after referring to the experts' opinion shall be final, subject to any legal remedy available to the petitioners.
By consent of all the parties, the above writ petitions have been taken up for final disposal.
2. Since the issue involved in all the cases are one and the same, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.
.3. The issue involved in all these writ petitions are relating to the preliminary examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for Group I
.Services in the year 2006-2007 on 212. 2007. It is seen that the respondent, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, has issued a Notification on 01.08.2007 for commencing selection process for Group I Services. It is not in dispute that the present Notification has been issued in respect of the selection process for Group I Services after a period of 7 years. The respondent Service Commission has notified 178 posts. As per the Notification, the process of selection for Group I Services consists of 3 stages. The 1st stage is about the preliminary examination, which was conducted on 212. 2007. The said preliminary examination is stated to be a screening test consisted of a single paper in General Knowledge of Degree Standard with 200 questions, which are objective in nature. The maximum marks being 300 and the duration of examination, which was conducted, was 3 hours. The 2nd stage is the main examination. After the screening test conducted by way of preliminary examination, the Service Commission selects candidates on the basis of 1:10 ratio having regard to the rule of reservation of appointments and the selected candidates are sent for the final written examination, which are to be conducted on 16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008 in various centres at Chennai. The said main examination is a proper written examination consisting of two papers, viz., General Studies Paper-I and General Studies Paper-II, each of 300 maximum marks with 3 hours duration. The 3rd stage is that after the selection process made in the written examination is over, the selected candidates are called for oral interview.
.4. These writ petitions are concerned about the manner with which the preliminary examination was conducted by the Tamil Nadu Service Commission on 212. 2007. These writ petitioners, who have participated in the preliminary examination on 212. 2007, have raised some doubts about either the validity of the questions, which are prepared by the Service Commission, or about the correctness of the key answers stated to have been prepared by the Service Commission and these discrepancies, according to the petitioners, have come to limelight only after the declaration of results on 25.04.2008, by way of group discussion among the petitioners and on the basis of self-evaluation. Normally, this Court would not entertain such writ petitions against the examinations conducted by a Constitutional Authority like Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, which is performing its constitutional function, but considering the genuineness of some of the grievances raised by the petitioners as well as some candidates, this Court has taken a definite stand that the suspicion in the minds of the candidates, who have taken part in the preliminary examination, that there has been some discrepancies is well founded.
5. It is also relevant to point out at this stage that after the preliminary examination was over, nearly 31 candidates, who have participated in the examinations, have raised some objections in the light of Clause 42 of the instructions to the candidates issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.
6. The said Clause 42 of the instructions to the candidates, which confers certain rights on the participants in the preliminary examination to point out any defects in the question booklets to the Service Commission so as to enable the Service Commission to take proper steps, is as follows:-
"Candidates are advised to write to the Controller of Examinations on items or question, the candidate considers defective in the Question Booklet within three days from the date of
