Invalidation of an answer paper based on perceived impertinent remarks must be contextually justified; remarks directly relating to the essay topic cannot be deemed irrelevant.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Declaration declaring the invalidation of the petitioner's answer paper (Registration No.050130120) in Essay Part-B (Main Exam) for recruitment to posts included in Combined Civil Services Examination-II Group-II Services (2013-2014) conducted by the respondent on 08.11.2014 as illegal and consequently to direct the respondent to evaluate the petitioner's answer paper (Registration No.050130120) in Essay Part-B (Main Exam) and award marks and consider the petitioner for appointment to the posts included in Combined Civil Services Examination-II Group II Services within the time stipulated by this Court.

2. Heard Mr.G.Karthik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Panneerselvam, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the Advertisement No.14/2013, dated 05.09.2013 issued by the respondent- Public Service Commission for recruitment to the posts included in Combined Civil Services Examination-II Group-II Services, the petitioner applied for the same under BC Woman (PSTM) and her Registration Nnumber is 050130120. The preliminary test was conducted on 01.12.2013 and the petitioner was successful in the preliminary test. Thereafter, she was permitted to participate in the main examination conducted on 08.11.2014. In the forenoon, Part-A examination on General Studies was conducted and in the afternoon, Part-B exam on Essay was conducted.

4. On 09.04.2015, the petitioner was called for the certificate verification. She proved her eligibility in the certificate verification. Thereafter, on 15.07.2015, the petitioner attended interview for 40 marks held. Further, she was called for the counselling on 31.08.2015. In pursuance to the counselling, she was not selected on the ground that she had secured only 184 marks in total. The petitioner was very hopeful that she would certainly get more than the cut-off marks of 190 in total. Hence, the petitioner made queries as to the marks obtained by her in every exam and interview. The petitioner came to know that she was awarded 160 marks in Part-A and 24 marks in interview and in Part-B, the answer paper itself was made invalidation and not evaluated. Without the marks in Part-B exam, the petitioner has secured 184 and so if some more marks would have been given in Part-B exam, certainly the petitioner would have been selected. Therefore, the petitioner made further queries as to how the Part-B answer paper was made invalid. The petitioner applied under R.T.I Act and the petitioner got the reply with much difficulty only after approaching the Information Commission. The appellate authority at last served the reply dated 22.12.2016 stating that her answer paper in Part- B has been treated as invalid, since the petitioner has written something irrelevant to the questions on the last page of the answer paper.

5. On a perusal of the answer paper of the petitioner, it is seen that the answer to the question "Write a detailed account on importance and conservation of natural resources" the petitioner has concluded by writing as "Jai Hind, Let us live united with nature". According to the petitioner, it is very much relevant to the question as the concluding remarks to the answer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that invalidating the answer paper is per se illegal and the same is not sustainable and the petitioner is at loss and the last line is relevant to the question and