The Court cannot modify or relax the terms and conditions of the instructions in an examination notification of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, as established by the precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in its letter No.430/DTD-D1/2020, dated 28.10.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to re-evaluate the petitioner''s answer book in Test Code No.064 – Local Fund Audit Departmental Test – Commercial Book keeping (without Books) within a period that may be stipulated by this Court.)

1.The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 28.10.2020 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to re-evaluate the petitioner''s answer book in Test Code No.064 – Local Fund Audit Departmental Test – Commercial Book keeping (without Books) within a period stipulated by this Court.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took me through each and every contention putforth before this Court in his affidavit.

3. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated every defence which has been raised in the counter-affidavit.

4. Heard Mr.M.E.Ilango, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.Anandha Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and anxiously perused the entire materials available on record.

5. The petitioner was appointed as a Assistant Inspector in the State Government Audit Department, Thoothukudi in the year 2018. The Government introduced the scheme for sanctioning one advance increment to the subordinate officers. Any officer passing the four tests in the departmental examination conducted by the respondents before the completion of the probation period would be eligible to get one advance increment. The petitioner appeared for the departmental exam conducted in December, 2018 and passed three out of four tests. Hence, he appeared in the departmental exam conducted in December, 2019 and had attended the test 064 – Local Fund Audit Departmental Test – Commercial Book keeping (without books) again. However, the petitioner again failed in the said examination by getting 16 marks. The minimum mark to pass the above test is 18 and the petitioner lost the game by just two marks. Hence, he requested the Public Information Officer, TNPSC to provide him with a copy of his answer book under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 18.07.2020. The petitioner received a copy of his answer book from the respondent on 07.10.2020.

6. According to the petitioner, though he had written the examination by giving correct answers, the same was not evaluated properly and most of the answers were given less marks. Hence, he made a detailed representation on 14.10.2020 to the second respondent seeking to re-evaluate his answer book as per Clause 23 of the Revised instructions to candidates, who appeared for departmental examinations, dated 01.10.2019 issued by the first respondent. However, the said representation was negated by the second respondent stating that the marks would be awarded only for those answers which are fully correct or if marks are not awarded inadvertently for a correct answer or if an answer is not corrected at all. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

7. Clause 23 of the revised instructions to candidates appearing for departmental examinations is extracted as follows:-

“23.Requests from candidates for furnishing the cause of failure in the test or for revaluation of their answer book will not be complied with. However the commission reserves to itself the right to get any answer book revalued if in its opinion there are sufficient and valid grounds to do so.”

8. The revised instructions mandates that request for re-evaluation of answer book would not be complied with and such an exercise could be done only if the commission in his opinion consider