Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3177
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
R. Dharmalingam
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Chennai & Another
W.P.No.26965 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided On :08-02-2010
For the Petitioner:N. Rajan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, A. Arumugam, Spl.G.P. R2, C.N.G. Ezhilarasi, Advocate.
The denial of the right to demand reevaluation does not constitute a denial of fair play, and delay in approaching the court can lead to dismissal of the petition.
Headnote:
Reevaluation - Writ Petition - Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others (1984) 4 SCC 27, W.A.No.1453 of 2008 and W.P.No.8745 of 2009 - The court discussed the denial of the right to demand reevaluation and the impact of delay in approaching the court on the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to challenge an order by the TNPSC regarding the late receipt of his letter and the denial of reevaluation of his examination paper.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of delay in approaching the court and the absence of a right to claim reevaluation as a matter of right.
Issues: Late receipt of petitioner's letter, denial of reevaluation, and delay in approaching the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of the right to demand reevaluation does not constitute a denial of fair play and that delay in approaching the court can lead to dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the order dated 03.01.2009 passed by the second respondent – TNPSC in response to his letters dated 18.07.2008 and 11.12.2008. By the impugned order, the second respondent had informed the petitioner that the petitioners first letter was received by them after verification of certificates of the selected candidates. Since the letter was sent belatedly, no action will be taken on the basis of the request made by the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner was he was appointed as a Junior Assistant on contract basis on 04.07.2003 and was posted to work in the Commercial Tax Department. When applications were called for by a notification dated 06.12.2007 for Special Competitive Examination among those temporary candidates, the petitioner had also sent his application. The examination comprised of two papers i.e. General Knowledge and General Tamil or General English carrying 150 marks each. The pass mark prescribed for Group IV Special Competitive Examination was 90 out of 300 marks. The petitioner got his hall ticket to attend the examination in a centre at Tiruchirappalli.
3. According to the petitioner, he wrote the examination exceedingly well. But however to his shock, on 16.07.2008, he came to know from the internet that only 70 marks were awarded to him in the written examination. According to him, he made a mistake in filling up the column meant for the serial number of the question paper, by writing A instead of D. The petitioner thought that for this mistake only two marks will be deducted. According to the petitioner, the Association to which he belongs had challenged the original notification in having restricted the number of posts to filled up to 4103 instead of 11500. It is stated that the respondents have regularised the service of those candidates who have secured 204.5 marks and above in the first batch under the MBC category. In the second category, the respondents regularised the candidates who have secured 184.5 marks and those matters were seized by this Court. By a letter dated 06.05.2009 it was agreed to regularise all those candidates who have secured pass marks i.e. 90 marks and above in the examination held on 17.02.2008. It was thereafter, the petitioner had realised that he would have got more than 90 marks. Therefore, on 11.12.2008, he sent a representation reiterating his earlier request to reevaluate his answer sheet and award proper marks. When he received the impugned order, he has come forward to file the present writ petition.
4. Heard the arguments of Mr.N.Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.Arumugam, learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent and Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi, learned counsel for the second respondent- TNPSC.
5. In the instructions given to the candidates for writing the examination, in Instruction Nos.23 and 42, it was stated as follows:-
"23.The Booklet Series [viz.,A,B,C or D] will be available on the top left side corner of the 1st page of the question booklet. That Booklet Series has to be noted down in the column provided for that purpose on Side-2 of the answer sheet besides shading the relevant box as shown in the example given in the Appendix. Two marks will be deducted if the Box for Booklet Series is not shaded/wrongly shaded.
42. 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 Examination. In such representations, Register Number, Name and address of the candidate, Question Number, Question Booklet Series etc., should invariably be quoted. Any representation received after three days from the date of examination or without any of the required particulars will receive no attention."
6. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner never questioned anything immediately after writing the examination as require
