Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 20338
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. ASHA
M.Balaji – Appellant
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Public Service – Respondent
Candidates cannot be appointed without fulfilling examination requirements, even in cases of procedural anomalies such as lost answer sheets.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Writ Petition - Act Sections - This case discusses the procedural deficiencies in examination processes, highlighting lost answer sheets and the resulting consequences on candidates. The court emphasized the necessity of fulfilling examination requirements, denying entitlement to appointment without due process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for selection in the Group II A Examination, claiming loss of his answer sheet and arguing he should be appointed despite not being able to demonstrate qualifications through examination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no evidence of malafide intent regarding the lost answer sheet and ruled that the petitioner was offered a chance to retake the examination, which he declined. The court held that mere existence of a procedural error did not warrant an appointment without due process.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to an appointment despite the loss of his answer sheet and refusal to retake the examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that candidates must undergo the entire examination process to be eligible for appointment, and procedural errors do not automatically translate to appointment rights.
Final Decision: The writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking a st mandamus to the 1 respondent to declare the petitioner as selected in the Group II A Examination pursuant to the Notification No.1 of 2014 st dated 06.02.2014 and consequently direct the 1 respondent to forward the name of the petitioner to the concerned department for appointment.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he comes from a poor family and had lost his father who was an agricultural coolie in the year 1991. The petitioner's mother had single handedly raised her children which included the petitioner. The petitioner would submit that he had completed his B.A. History in the year 2013 and was doing sundry jobs to take care of his family.
st
3. In the month of February 2014, the 1 respondent called for applications for the Combined Civil Services Examination-II (Non- interview posts) (Group II-A Services) vide Notification No.1/2014 for 2269 vacant posts of Personal Clerk, Assistants and Lower Divisional Clerks in various departments in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service/Secretiat Services/Legislative Assembly Secretariat Service. The qualifications prescribed for the above said posts was graduation in BA/B.Sc./B.com. For certain posts, like Legislative Assembly Secretariat Services, an additional Technical Qualification such as Higher Grade in Typewriting and Shorthand was prescribed. The age limit as on 01.07.2014 was prescribed to be between 18 and 30 years.
4. The petitioner had applied online for the said post on
13.02.2014 and was given a Registration Id.No.401089639. He had also received his hall ticket with a Registration No.012315061 for the written examination that was scheduled to be held on 29.06.2014 between 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and the venue was PAK Palanisamy Higher Secondary School, Old Washermanpet. The petitioner had also written the examination to the best of his ability.
5. The petitioner would submit that 5 months after he had st written the examination, the officials from the 1 respondent's office had visited his residence on 27.11.2014 and handed him a letter dated 26.11.2014 directing him to appear at the office of the Controller of st Examination in the 1 respondent's office at 11 a.m. on 28.11.2014. A copy of the letter was also received by him through Speed Post. On 28.11.2014, the petitioner went to the office of the 1st respondent as directed where he was questioned regarding the examination he had already taken, including where he had written the exam, his residential address, email address, and whether he had submitted his answer sheet. The petitioner then wanted to know why he was subjected to this questioning at which point in time he was told that it was only to cross verify the residential address in the identity card. They had also threatened the petitioner to sign a typed paper and to fill up a questionnaire form which was turned down by the petitioner. In fact, the officials had gone to the extent of manhandling the petitioner. 6. It is his further case that on 04.12.2014 once again an official st from the 1 respondent's office had forcibly attempted to hand over a hall ticket for the written examination scheduled to be held on 08.12.2014. The petitioner refused to receive the same. Thereafter, the said person along with the V.A.O. of the Village Panchayat and his assistant forcibly affixed the hall ticket on the front wall of his house. The hall ticket was also sent by Registered Post which the petitioner had received after the scheduled date of the examination.
7. The petitioner would submit that he had sought for the production of his answer sheet under the RTI Act by his letter dated 17.12.2014. However, he did not receive any reply from the Public Information Officer of the 1st respondent. Therefore, he had preferred an appeal under the RTI Act to the Appellate Authority of the 1st respondnent. Even then he did not receive any reply. Therefore, a second appeal was preferred before the Tamil Nadu Information Com
