Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 43
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
A. Babu Prasanth - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Toad, Chennai & Others - Respondents
W.P. Nos. 22670 of 2019 & 113 of 2020 & WMP Nos. 22149 of 2019 & 137 of 2020
Decided On : 14-02-2020
For the Petitioner:R. Vidhuthalai, Senior Counsel, G. Sankaran, Advocate
For the Respondents: C.N.G. Niraimathi, Standing Counsel
The instructions issued by the Service Commission are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. The court considered the distinction between cases where candidates commit a mistake and cases where mistakes happen due to wrong administrative handling by the Invigilators.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Selection Process - Paper-III Main Written Examination - Notification No.19/2016 - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - [Paper-I, Paper-II, Paper-III] - The court considered the petitioner's request to validate the answer sheet for Paper-III Main Written Examination and to permit the petitioner to undergo the process of selection. The court analyzed the instructions issued by the Service Commission, the petitioner's academic background, and the actions of the Invigilator. The court referred to relevant legal principles and judgments to determine the petitioner's eligibility for selection.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a candidate with an excellent academic background, sought selection to the post of Deputy Collector. After writing the Group-I examination, the petitioner applied for the post of Deputy Collector and cleared the preliminary examination. During the IIIrd examination, the petitioner struck out answers and was instructed by the Invigilator to put his signature, resulting in his disqualification. The petitioner made representations to TNPSC, but his name was not included in the selection list.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's disqualification was due to the wrong handling of the situation by the Invigilator. The court noted the petitioner's outstanding academic career and high marks in the first two papers. However, the selection process was already complete, and the court could not direct TNPSC to reconsider the petitioner's selection. The court urged the State Government to consider creating an additional post of Deputy Collector to accommodate the petitioner if he secured sufficient marks in Paper-III and the oral interview.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's act of putting his short signature in the answer sheet should result in his disqualification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles and judgments to determine that the instructions issued by the Service Commission are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. The court also considered the distinction between cases where candidates commit a mistake and cases where mistakes happen due to wrong administrative handling by the Invigilators.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petitions, urging the State Government to consider creating an additional post of Deputy Collector to accommodate the petitioner if he secured sufficient marks in Paper-III and the oral interview. The relief given in the present case cannot be cited as a precedent.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer in W.P.No.22670 of 2019: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to validate the answer sheet for Paper-III Main Written Examination conducted by Respondent Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on 15.10.2017 and to consider the Petitioner for selection to the post of Deputy Collector by allowing him to undergo the process of selection including interview based on the marks secured by the Petitioner in the Main Written Examination, in pursuant to the Notification No.19/2016 dated 09.11.2016 issued by the 1st Respondent, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
W.P.No.113 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned final selection list to the post of Deputy Collector in No. Nil dated 20.02.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same insofar as non-consideration of the petitioner for selection and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner for selection to the post of Deputy Collector by allowing him to undergo the process of interview based on the marks secured by him in the Written Examination in pursuant to Notification No.19/2016 dated 09.11.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent, by validating the answer sheet for Paper-III Main Written Examination held on 15.10.2017, with all consequential and other attendant benefits.)
1. The issue involved in both the Writ Petitions are common and therefore both the writ petitions are taken up together and this common judgment is passed.
2. The petitioner who had an excellent academic background, wrote the Group-I examination conducted by The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission [hereinafter referred to as “TNPSC”] in the year 2012-2014. He secured the 30th rank and was selected to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police [Category-I] and the petitioner is presently undergoing practical training. The petitioner wanted to make another attempt since he was aspiring for the post of Deputy Collector. The petitioner therefore, again wrote Group-I examination conducted during the year 2014-2015 and he once again became eligible for the post of DSP. Since the petitioner was already holding the post, he did not take up the offer.
3. The TNPSC again issued a Notification in the year 2016 inviting applications for direct recruitment to various posts including the post of Deputy Collector. The petitioner applied for the selection and he cleared the preliminary examination. Thereafter, the petitioner was called to appear for the main examination. The written examination was conducted on three days viz., 13, 14 and 15 of October 2017. The petitioner wrote the examinations on 13 and 14 of October 2017. During the IIIrd examination on 15.10.2017, the petitioner had striked out a few answers which were wrongly written without reference to the relevant page allotted to the question. While he struck off the answers, it is alleged that the Invigilator present in the examination hall instructed the petitioner to put his signature. The petitioner claims that he refused to do so on the ground that it will result in his disqualification. However, the Invigilator insisted the petitioner to sign on the page where he had striked out the answer and left with no other option, the petitioner had also put his short signature.
4. The petitioner had thereafter made representations to TNPSC and informed them that he was forced to put his signature due to the insistence of the Invigilator. However, there was no response for the representations. Ultimately, TNPSC published the provisional list of candidates short listed for the oral test and the name of the petitioner was not included in the selection list. Thereafter, the final results were also published
