BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.12.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P.(MD)No.3302 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.2648, 2650 and 2652 of 2021 K.Harikrishnan ...Petitioner/Petitioner Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, The Department of Information and Technology, Secretariat, Chennai.

2. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.

3. The Controller of the Examination, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.

...Respondents/Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent vide his proceedings Nil dated Nill invalidating the candidature of the petitioner and quash the same as illegal and consequentially direct the respondents to select the petitioner for the posts of Assistant System Engineer/Assistant System Analyst by valuating answer script of the petitioner within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : M/s.H.Mohammed Imran for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam Government Advocate for R1 Mr.J.Anandkumar for R2 and R3

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed by an aspirant to the post of Assistant System Engineer who had applied pursuant to notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission challenging an order passed by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission wherein a descriptive type answer sheet has been invalidated for violation of the instructions to the notification.

2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, without assigning any reason whatsoever, the descriptive type answer sheet of the writ petitioner has been invalidated.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has used both blue ink and black ink in the answer sheet intermittendly. He points out that paragraph No.10 of the counter of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents which is extracted as follows:-

“10. In this connection it is respectfully submitted that as per para 22 (III) (1) (i) of the Commission's Instructions to Applicants, a candidate has to use either blue or black color, while writing the answers. He should use only one colour and he cannot use both the colour pens and the said instructions read as follows:-

Invalidation Usage of ink other than Blue or Black (Fountain pen or Ball pen or Gel ink). Applicant should use only any one of the two colors. If the applicant uses blue ink he/she should use the same blue ink in the entire answer book for all purposes including answering, drawing, underlining, highlighting, etc., Likewise if the applicant uses black ink he/she should use the same black ink in the entire answer book for all purposes. He should not use both blue and black ink in an answer paper. For this purpose applicants should keep sufficient number of additional pens of same type pens with same color ink and same shade.”

4. According to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd and

3^rd respondents relying upon the said clause in the notification, submitted that the petitioner having used both blue ink and black ink, his descriptive type answer sheet has been invalidated. He also relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P(MD)No.15126 of 2020 dated 26.04.2023 which relates to the same selection process.

5. Paragraph No.8 of the said order is extracted as follows:-

“8. When the instructions clearly stipulate that the applicant should use only any one of the two colours (ie.) black or blue, usage of both would lead to invalidation of the answer sheets. I personally went through the answer sheet of the writ petitioner. It is seen that the petitioner had used both Blue as well as Black inks. She had also used pencil. The Tamil Nadu Publi