The completion of the selection process and the legal impermissibility of accommodating a candidate after a significant delay.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 30.06.2022 passed in WP No. 12116 of 2015 on the file of this Court.)

R. Mahadevan, J.

The appellant, who is aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 30.06.2022 passed by the learned Judge in Writ Petition No. 12116 of 2015, has come forward with this writ appeal.        

2. The aforesaid writ petition No. 12116 of 2015 was filed by the appellant seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 18.03.2015 passed by the third respondent and to issue a direction to appoint her to the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Tamil).

3.(i) According to the appellant, she obtained a Bachelor Degree in Tamil during the year 2006 and Post Graduate Degree in the same subject in the year 2008. It is stated that the appellant had registered her name in the Professional Employment Exchange, Chennai bearing Registration No. 2008F00023138 in anticipation of employment opportunity befitting her qualification. At this stage, the third respondent - Teachers Recruitment Board (in short, “the Board”) issued a notification dated 09.05.2013 inviting applications for direct recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Tamil). The appellant applied for the said post and she also participated in the written examination held on 21.07.2013.

(ii) It is stated that in the written examination conducted by the Board, the appellant was provided with “D“ series question paper, while some other candidates, who had written the examination along with her, have been furnished with question papers with “A“, “B“ and “C“ series. It is further stated that the questions contained in all the question papers remain the same, but the candidates were furnished different question papers with different serial number. It is also stated that all the questions are multiple choice questions for which there was only one correct answer. As per the pattern of examination, even if a candidate furnishes the wrong answer, there will not be any negative mark for the same. According to the appellant, she did the examination well and was anticipating to get selected.

(iii) On 23.12.2013, the Board published the key answers to the questions as well as the list of candidates eligible for certificate verification. As per the results published, the appellant secured 100 out of 150 marks but fell short of 1 mark to come within the zone of consideration viz., 101 marks. When the appellant verified the questions and key answers, she noticed that the answers provided by her have not been properly evaluated by the Board and several questions set in the question papers were wrong and this had deprived her a mark for being selected. Therefore, on 26.12.2013, the appellant submitted a representation to the third respondent for correct valuation of the question Nos. 28, 35, 53, 88, 93, 100 and 115 along with the documentary evidence.

(iv) While so, by pointing out the errors in several questions in the question papers furnished to the candidates during the competitive examination, two writ petitions viz., WP (MD) Nos. 13267 and 14940 of 2013 have been filed and by order dated 01.10.2013, this Court directed the Board to conduct fresh examination. Aggrieved by the same, the Board filed Writ Appeal (MD) Nos. 1089 and 1090 of 2013. The Division Bench of this Court, while ordering notice, directed the Board to keep two posts of Post Graduate Assistant vacant for the respondents in the said writ appeals. Following the same, the appellant herein filed WP (MD) No. 421 of 2014 and on 07.01.2014, this Court granted an interim direction to keep one post of Graduate Assistant (Tamil) vacant for the appellant. Subsequently, on 04.12.2014, this Court disposed of the said writ petition, with a direction to the appellant to submit a representation to the third respondent-Board and with further direction to the