The Department must uniformly apply corrections to examination scoring errors to all affected candidates, ensuring no discrimination and timely relief without waiting for individual petitions.

ORDER :

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

The challenge in this writ petition is to the communication in C. No. R-1/1081/2011 dated 26.04.2011 issued by the fourth respondent. By the said communication, the petitioner’s request for awarding additional marks for Question Nos. 11, 38, and 44 in the examination conducted for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2006 came to be rejected.

2. While the petitioner was working as a Grade-I Police Constable, a notification dated 19.07.2006 was issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB), inviting applications for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. In response to the said notification, the petitioner applied for the post. During the selection process, a physical efficiency test was conducted by the Recruitment Board, which the petitioner successfully completed. Thereafter, a written examination was conducted on 20.05.2007, followed by a viva-voce.

3. In the written examination, the petitioner admittedly secured 76 marks out of 100. He therefore claimed that he came within the zone of consideration for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police (Taluk), i.e., independent charge of a police station in a Taluk Headquarters. However, the cut-off mark prescribed for candidates belonging to the Most Backward Class category was 78 marks.

4. In these circumstances, several unselected candidates, including the petitioner, approached this Court contending that the key answers published by the Recruitment Board contained incorrect answers to Question Nos. 11, 38, and 44. The petitioner, after obtaining a copy of the key answers under the Right to Information Act, found that the key answers to the aforesaid questions were erroneous. The petitioner had answered all three questions correctly but was not awarded any marks for the same. In W.P. No. 4509 of 2009 and batch cases, this Court, by order dated 04.11.2009, issued eight directions, one of which required the respondents to prepare a list of all unselected candidates who had answered Question No.11 with option (D), Question No. 38 with all correct answers, and Question No.44 with option (A), and to award marks accordingly.

5. The directions issued in the said writ petitions were challenged by the State in Writ Appeal Nos.1719 to 1739 of 2010 and batch cases filed by the Recruitment Board. The Division Bench, by order dated 23.12.2010, allowed the writ appeals and set aside the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. Subsequently, one Mr.R.Alex filed W.P. No.9181 of 2009 seeking award of marks and consequential refixation of seniority. The said writ petition was allowed, and a direction was issued to consider the representation dated 09.04.2009 submitted by Mr.R.Alex, Sub-Inspector of Police.

6. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the representation of Mr.R.Alex was considered by the Principal Secretary to Government, and his category was changed from Armed Reserve to Sub-Inspector of Police (Taluk). Thereafter, one Mr.S.Suthakar filed W.P. No.8016 of 2013 seeking similar relief as granted to Mr. R. Alex. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 24.10.2018, which led Mr.S.Suthakar to file Writ Appeal No. 2771 of 2019. The Division Bench, by order dated 16.04.2021, allowed the writ appeal, and paragraphs 17 and 18 thereof read as follows:

“17. We find that when the appellant/writ petitioner came to know about the mistake which crept in the key answer, he immediately applied for