The main legal point established in the judgment is that mistakes in key answers, if unintentional and bonafide, may warrant the court's intervention to grant relief to affected candidates.

N.KIRUBAKARAN,J.

1. These Writ Appeals arise out of a common order passed in writ petitions Nos.4509 of 2009 etc. batch dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge by which directions were issued to prepare a list of un-selected candidates, who answered three disputed questions in the written examination conducted for selection of Sub-Inspector of Police, by virtue of notification dated 18.7.2006, which was issued to fill up 682 vacancies. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners and respondents in the above writ petitions are referred in the writ appeals also as petitioners and respondents respectively.

2. Brief facts are as follows:

The second respondent Board issued a notification dated 18.7.2006 for selection of 682 candidates for the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Written examination was conducted on 20-5-2007 and provisional selection list was announced on 20.12.2007. The un-selected candidates in the examination, questioned the provisional selection before this court contending that:

1) Quota fixed for each category was not followed,

2) Written test was not properly conducted,

3) Answers were not published

4) Marks were not properly given,

5)Marks were not published in the internet,

6)waiting list of candidates were not published,

7)Service Commission did not follow the established procedures in the process of selection due to show transparency. On appreciation of the facts, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on 20.11.2007 upholding the selection, which was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.194 of 2007 batch on 28.3.2008.

3. Subsequently the candidates approached under RTI Act seeking information regarding questions and answers and answer sheets and they came to know that marks were awarded for answering wrong key answers and marks were not given inspite of answering properly. The disputed questions are 11,38 and 44 which are as follows:

11. Greenhouse effect is caused by A) Oxygen depletion B) Ozone Layer depletion C) Hydrogen reduction D) Greenery reduction Question No.38 is as follows: What percentage (%) of human body weight is water? A) 55B) 65 C) 70D) 80

Question No.44 is as follows:

44 Free Indias first Governor-General was

A) Mountbatten B) Rajaji

C) Dr.Zakir Hussain D) Dr.Radhakrishnan

4. For question No.11, the key answer given was (B) Ozone layer depletion whereas the correct answer is (D) Greenery reduction. For question No.38, the key answer given was "C-70", whereas all questions were found to be correct. For question No.44, the key answer given was "D"-Rajaji, whereas the right answer was "A"-Mount Batten. The aforesaid position was admitted by the second respondent board in the reply given under Right to Information Act.

5. Therefore based on the information obtained under Rights to Information Act, the petitioners approached this court seeking a direction to the respondents to add the marks in view of wrong key answers and wrong valuation and consider them for selection.

6. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the respondents admitted mistakes in the key answers, non-awarding of marks to the candidates who wrote correct answers and awarding of marks to wrong key answers and therefore marks for the correct key answers are required to be given to the petitioners and based on which, the petitioners are to be considered for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. Secondly it was contended that problem started because of wrong/mistake committed by the Respondent-Board. Thirdly the respondents themselves were not aware of mistakes committed by the board and only after ascertaining the facts under Rights to Information Act, they approached the court. They also contended that supernumerary posts could be created and based on the revaluation the petitioners could be accommodated.

7. On behalf of the respondents, it was argued that the matter already attained finality in the earlier writ proceedings, that resjudicata is attracted and that