Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 36229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
G.Raja s/o.N.Govindan – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission – Respondent
WMP NO. 32346 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.L.Chandrakumar
For the Respondents: Mr. R.Bharanidharan, Standing Counsel For R1, Mr.S.SHANMUGASUNDARAM, for R2
Candidate cannot benefit from inadvertent error allowing participation beyond minimum qualifying marks in written exam; exclusion valid upon rectification.
Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ Petition filed under - Challenge to proceedings stating candidate did not obtain minimum qualifying marks and was not considered for selection pursuant to Notification No.10/2021 dated 25.08.2021.
(B) Recruitment process - Minimum qualifying marks demarcated separately for written examination and oral test - Mistake in calculation by deducting maximum marks for oral test from minimum qualifying marks - Candidate with marks below minimum in written examination provisionally admitted to oral test - Mistake detected later, candidate excluded from selection. (Paras 2, 5)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenged proceedings excluding him from selection for Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II as he failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in written examination despite provisional admission to oral test due to calculation error.
Issues: Whether respondent can rectify inadvertent mistake and exclude candidate lacking minimum qualifying marks in written examination after allowing participation in oral test.
Findings of Court:
Petitioner cannot take advantage of inadvertent mistake; not permissible to benefit from own failure to meet minimum qualifying marks in written examination.
Ratio Decidendi: Court cannot permit candidate to gain from Commission's inadvertent error in process; exclusion justified upon detection of mistake regarding minimum qualifying marks. (Para 4)
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. inadvertent error in qualifying marks calculation (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner claims estoppel after participation (Para 3) |
| 3. no advantage from commission's mistake (Para 4) |
| 4. petition dismissed, representation allowed (Para 5) |
Order
This Writ Petition had been filed challenging the proceedings dated
02.12.2022 in so far as relates to the registration No.0101003071.
2. At the outset, it is clarified by the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent that the petitioner has not obtained the minimum qualifying marks. Inadvertently overlooking the same, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the subsequent rounds of selection. Subsequently, the mistake was noticed and the petitioner was not considered for selection. This fact would be clear from paragraph No.5 of the counter which reads as under:
“5.It is respectfully submitted that para 8 (ii) of the Notification dated 25.08.2021 reads as follows:-
“8. SCHEME OF EXAMINATION:
(i) ……
(ii) MAIN WRITTEN EXAMINATION (BACHELOR’S DEGREE STANDARD – DESCRIPTIVE TYPE) AND (iii)
ORAL TEST:
In the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade-II notification, the minimum qualifying marks has already been demarcated separately for written marks and oral test. But, inadvertently overlooking the above said concept, while calculating the minimum qualifying marks for the said recruitment, the maximum marks awarded for oral test was deducted from the minimum qualifying marks, as is being followed for all other interview posts for arriving at the rank list. As a result, the petitioner bearing register number 0101003071 who has secured the below minimum qualifying marks in the main written examination has been inadvertently admitted provisionally to Oral Test under MBC/DC(G)PSTM category whereas the minimum qualifying marks for that category is 160.00. Consequently, the marks (both written examination and oral test) of the said candidate have been withheld in the consolidated mark list. In the next successive stage i.e., after conclusion of oral test, at the time of preparing Consolidated Marks List for Oral Test, the above mentioned mistake was found out and this candidate was not considered for further selection process.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it may not be open to the first respondent to go back once the petitioner has been permitted to participate in the subsequent selection process.
4. This Court finds the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner unacceptable. It may not be permissible for the petitioner to take advantage of the inadvertent mistake in as much as the petitioner admittedly does not possess minimum qualifying marks in the written examination.
5. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. It is open to the second respondent to make any representation, if so advised, with regard to his right of appointment from the reservation list. If any such representation is made, the same would be considered in accordance with law. Such exercise shall be carried out within a period of six weeks from the date of representation.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
