Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 820
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU, J.
S. Arunkumar
Versus
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission & Another
W.P. No. 1131 of 2013 & M.P. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2013
Decided On : 08-02-2013
For the Petitioner:V. Raghavachari, S. Gunalan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:N.S. Nandakumar, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the public service commission to revise examination schemes and syllabi to enhance the selection process and ensure the selection of suitable candidates, in line with the fundamental duties enshrined in the Constitution.
Headnote:
Notification - Challenge - Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission - Group-I services examination - 2004 syllabus - change of scheme - aptitude test - modification of examination - fundamental duties - dismissal of writ petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) regarding the change of scheme of examination and syllabus for Group-I services examination for the year 2012. The petitioner contended that the change in the scheme of preliminary examination in the middle of the selection process was unjust and did not provide for a level playing field.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the TNPSC had revised the scheme and syllabus for Group-I services examination to simplify the selection process, enhance the standards of selection, and create a higher level of competition among candidates. The court also noted that the examination date was postponed, providing nearly 40 days of preparation time, thereby addressing the petitioner's original grievance of insufficient preparation time.
Issues: The issues included the fairness of introducing an aptitude test in the middle of the selection process, the adequacy of preparation time given to candidates, and the authority of the TNPSC to revise the examination scheme and syllabus.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the TNPSC's revision of the examination scheme and syllabus was aimed at enhancing the selection process and ensuring the selection of the right candidates. The court also emphasized the importance of testing candidates' aptitude for holding the post, citing fundamental duties under the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding that no case was made out to interfere with the modified scheme and revised syllabus published by the TNPSC for the selection of Group-I services. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the notification, dated 31.12.2012 issued by way of an advertisement No.337 by the respondents Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short TNPSC).
2. By the aforesaid notification, the TNPSC announced the change of scheme of examination and syllabus for Group-I services examination for the year 2012. It also specified the subjects for the preliminary examination, main written examination and oral test. In the preliminary examination, general knowledge paper carries 150 items in general knowledge and 50 items in aptitude and that duration is 3 hours. The maximum mark that will be awarded is 300 marks. Similarly, the main written examination and the oral test was also specified that General Studies paper-I, General Studies paper-II and General Studies paper-III for degree standard with descriptive type. All the three papers will carry 300 maximum marks and that interview and record carries 120 marks. Out of total 1020 marks in the "B" category of main written examination and the oral test, for the candidates belong to SC, SC (Arunthathiyars), ST, MBC/DC, BC and BCM, the minimum qualifying mark is 306 and for other categories, it is 408 marks. The question paper will be circulated in both Tamil and English. The candidates will be allowed to answer the main written examination either in Tamil or in English or partly in Tamil and partly in English and are also allowed to write technical words wherever necessary in either of the language. In the Appendix to the notification, the syllabus for the examination was set out.
3. The petitioner sent a representation on 04.01.2013 stating that the syllabus for the preliminary examination was based on the bulletin No.16, dated 01.08.2004 and it did not include the syllabus for general mental ability, such as logical and behavioral reasoning analogies, data analysis, numerical ability, school arithmetic. But however in the present modified notification, it was indicated that 50 questions will be in the mental aptitude. He had prepared the examinations based on 2004 syllabus and that they had only limited time to prepare for the examinations, i.e., 25 days. The time given will not be sufficient. The additional mental aptitude test cannot be acquainted in this period. Therefore, he requested postponement of the examination to 27.01.2013 as per the notification. Though the step taken by the TNSPC is a welcome step, but they need time for preparing for the examination.
4. When the writ petition came up on 11.01.2013, this court directed notice to be served on the Standing Counsel for the TNSPC Mr.N.S.Nandakumar. On notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, dated Nil (2013).
5. Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel leading Mr.S.Gunalan and Mr.N.S.Nandakumar, learned Standing Counsel for the TNSPC.
6. The contention raised by the petitioner was that the change of scheme for preliminary examination in the middle of the selection process was unjust and they did not provide for level playing field. While the process of recruitment began with notification No.49 of 2012, dated 16.11.2012, the scheme has been made subsequent to the said notification. The scheme of preliminary examination is vital for qualifying to appear for further written examination in Grade-I service and it will affect the petitioner and others who might have encountered other examinations like Banking service and railway service where aptitude test is a compulsory subject. The inclusion of aptitude in the scheme of preliminary examination in the middle of the selection process is a disadvantage.
7. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the Commission has invited application for direct recruitment of 25 vacancies as per the notification No.49/2012, dated 16.11.2012. The earlier scheme of examination was prepared by the Commission on 01.08.2004 and that after several years, the minimum exercise was c
