D.Mathavi, v. The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.06.2016 CORAM :
The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN W.P. No.19249 of 2016 and W.M.P.No.16723 of 2016 D.Mathavi .. Petitioner -vs1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Police II) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 4.
3.The Member Secretary, Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Egmore, Chennai-8.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 3rd respondent in connection with the impugned result through website dt.15.11.15 (Enrolment No.8000688) and quash the same in so far as denying appointment to the petitioner as Sub-Inspector (under 20% departmental quota) and direct the respondents to award 2 marks to the petitioner for having given correct answers in respect of 'B' Series Question Nos.21, 73, 117 and 138 and consequently select and appoint her as Sub-Inspector of Police and grant her all consequential service benefits.
For Petitioner :
Mr.T.Rajarathi For Respondents:
Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, Addl. Advocate General, assisted by Mr.V.Shanmugasundar, G.A.
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) The present petition has been filed on 02.06.2016 in respect of the recruitment process for Sub-Inspectors notified on 08.02.2015. The process of recruitment provided for a written test on 23rd and 24th of May, 2015, for open and departmental candidates respectively and the tentative key answers qua the written test were published on 28.05.2015. The results of the written test were, thereafter, published on 18.07.2015, after scrutinising the objections and taking necessary corrective action. The candidates were, then, invited for Physical Endurance Test on a multiple of 5 for each vacancy from 03.08.2015 to 05.08.2015. The result of this was published on 21.08.2015 and thereafter, Viva Voce was conducted based on the ratio of 1 : 2 from 03.09.2015 to 15.10.
2015 for open and departmental candidates and for some of the candidates where directions were issued from 16.10.2015 to 30.10.2015. The final provisional select list was published on 15.11.2015. 2.In the course of this recruitment process, hundreds of petitions were filed at various stages and this Court deemed it appropriate that all the matters should be listed before this Bench so that the selection process is monitored and does not get delayed at each stage, with necessary orders being passed, wherever required at the intermittent stages. Thus, various controversies have been settled by this Court in this process through various orders passed from time to time. 3.
We have set forth the aforesaid dates only to show that it is after the final selection process is over that seven months thereafter the present petition is sought to be filed. 4.We may notice that the petitioner is a Grade-II Police Constable and thus, an in-service candidate, for which 20% seats are stated to be reserved. The petitioner obtained 57.5 marks in the written examination and qualified for the Viva Voce test, after going through the running test, as the remaining physical endurance tests are not applicable to in-service candidates. She raised no issues about the written test at any stage of time. She failed to qualify in the final results.
It is now that she seeks to raise an issue about certain alleged erroneous answers in the written examination questions and thus, pleads that she is entitled to two additional marks for correct answers to make the cut-off into the final list.
5.We had even earlier through various orders deprecated the practice of approaching this Court by candidates as and when they please when the relevant stage of process is over. An urgent approach to the Court in case of a grievance is necessary
in such examination process. In an order passed by us on 07.03.2016 in W.P.No.8391 2016, (between P.Diwakar and The Secretary to Government, Home (Police II) Department and others), we have observed as under:- 2.The petitioner went through the physical endurance test conducted from 33.08.2015 to 05.08.2015 and consequently results were published on 21.08.2015. We may note that for recruitment of 1078 candidates, more than 1.85 lakhs candidates participated, and the results were declared on the basis of ratio of 1:5 for each category. Post PET results, the next stage of viva-voce was in the ratio of 1:2. The petitioner went through the viva-voce, which was conducted from 03.09.2015 to 15.10.2015 and the final provisional select list was published on 15.11.2015.
The petitioner went through the complete process of examination at every stage having no grievance, but unfortunately at the final stage, he did not make it. This is, naturally the consequence as for each of the categories, double the number of candidates were called for the interview as against the required posts. We emphasise this because in the process of selection with large number of candidates, there will be many who will fall by the side. The present writ petition has been now preferred stating that the petitioner had some doubts on the key answers to certain questions for which one week's time had been granted to file objections on 01.03.2016 based on a representation dated 23.12.2015 requiring the coding sheet to be supplied, which was supplied on 28.05.2015.
3.We are setting aside the aforesaid dates, saying much after the period was over, the petitioner woke up and seeks to somehow get into the provisional select list.
4.We were faced with hundreds of cases during the selection process having dealt with each stage at the relevant time, so as to get the final stage and the result declaration. The candidates qualifying only at the particular stage would go to the next stage and that is the reason we monitored the process. The grievance/cause of action would arise at that stage in such examinations and we cannot expect the candidate to sleep over his/her rights and they must act promptly. In fact, we have rejected a large number
of cases where petitioners had an afterthought based upon the subsequent stage performance to question the previous stage only to get in as a candidate qualified at the subsequent stage. Such a request cannot be permitted once the examination process is over, when the cause of action for the petitioner expired on one week expiring from 28.05.2015."
6.We dismissed a batch of writ petitions on 14.03.2016 relying on the aforesaid principle. In fact, in the latter, we were inclined to impose costs in each of the cases, but we refrained from doing so as we were informed by the learned Additional Advocate General that imposition of costs would be placed in the service register of the individual writ petitioner.
7.We are informed by the learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, that the doubts over the answers relating to the questions referred to in the present petition are the same as in the batch of writ petitions dismissed on 14.03.2016, but their numbering may be different on account of the fact that those pertain to 'D' series, while in the present case, the question paper was of 'B' series.
8.It appears that even our restraint earlier has had no salutary effect on the current petitioner.
9.We are, thus, constrained to not only dismiss the petition in the aforesaid terms, but also impose costs of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) on the petitioner to be deposited with the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, within two (2) weeks.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sra
To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Police II) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 4.
3.The Member Secretary, Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Egmore, Chennai-8.
+ 1 cc to Mr.T. Rajarathi, Advocate SR.3587 W.P.No.19249 of 2016 SR(CO) Eu 23.06.2016