O.Rajiv v. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA W.M.P.Nos.29133, 29135, 30508 & 30509 of 2023 1.O.Rajiv 2.G.Karthik 3.E.Subashchandrabose 4.G.Satheesh Kumar 5.K.Sudharsan 6.K.Rajesh 7.T.Shanmuga Sundar 8.P.Jeyaprakash ... Petitioners in W.P.No.29511 of 2023 1.S.K.Pavithra 2.A.Sudharsan ... Petitioners in W.P.No.30844 of 2023
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Rep., by its Secretary, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.
.. Respondent in both WPs.
Prayer: W.P.No.29511 of 2023 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration to declare the Notification No. 05/2023 dated 03.02.2023 issued by Respondent in Clause 14(e) and Instructions to Applicants revised with effect from 22.03.2022 and in clause 17 (E) of items (d) (e) (g) and (h) of issued by the respondent as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to evaluate the Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) 1/10
answer sheets of the petitioners with register Numbers 1701002299, 1805006029, 0201004009, 1805002255, 1901008016, 1001014279, 0101021194 and 1805002149 respectively for selection to the posts included in the Combined Engineering subordinate Services Examination notified by the Respondent under Advertisement No.651, Notification No. 05/2023 dated 03.02.2023.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel W.P.29511/2023 for Mrs.C.Uma For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan W.P.30844/2023 For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay Standing Counsel (TNPSC) COMMON ORDER By consent, both the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of.
2.It is the case of the petitioners that they have appeared for the Combined Engineering subordinate Services Examination conducted by the respondent vide Advertisement No.651, Notification No.05/2023 dated 03.02.2023 and that written examination for Paper-I was held between 9.30 a.m., to 12.30 p.m., on 27.05.2023 and on the same date, the examination for Paper-II (Part A-Tamil Eligibility Test, Part-B - General Studies) was held between 2.00p.m., to 5.00p.m., and that they had written the examination very well. Though on 20.09.2023 the respondent had published the marks 2/10
secured by the candidates with the rank, the respondent in its website gave the remarks for the petitioners as "Deemed not fit for valuation for violation of commission's instructions to applicants". Thereby, challenging Clause 17(E) of the Instructions to applicants and Clause 14(e) of the notification for CESSE recruitment, the present writ petitions have been filed. 3.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.29511 of 2023 would submit that the petitioners had written the examination to their satisfaction, however, they have not been selected and the petitioners' results was declared as 'deemed not fit for valuation as per the Commission's instructions'. Though the petitioners have written the examinations as per instructions, the reasons assigned for invalidation of answer sheets under clause 17(E) in items (d)(e)(g) and (h) of the Instructions to Applicants issued by the respondent is also arbitrary and thereby seeks to allow the writ petitions.
4.The respondent has filed counter in both the writ petitions separately and the relevant portion of the counter in W.P.No.29511 of 2023 is extracted hereunder:
"It is respectfully submitted inspite of above instructions, the 3/10
petitioner(Candidates) have signed in the response portion in the place meant for Room Invigilator Signature which amounts to disclosure of identity and defeats the purpose of separation of OMR into two parts. Therefore, their OMRs have been invalidated as per Instructions to Applicants.
8.It is respectfully submitted that though the petitioners have declared in their affidavit that they have not committed any errors, they have violated the Commission's Instructions to Applicants and Instructions printed in OMR and hence, their contention is wrong. 9.It is further respectfully submitted that the OMR Answer sheets of the following three candidates were invalidated for the following reasons mentioned against their names:
S.No.
Name Register No.
Reason for Invalidation Not signed in personalized portion of OMR answer sheet for FN Session 1 G.Karthik 1805006029 2 G.Satheeshkumar 1805002255 Question Booklet Number not shaded (blank) for AN Session 3 P.Jeyaprakash 1805002149 Question Booklet Number not shaded (blank) for AN Session 11.It is respectfully submitted that with reference to the above para, the petitioner Thiru G.Karthik(Reg,No.1805006029) has not signed in 4/10
the place of the OMR answer sheet provided for that and Thiru G.Satheeshkumar (Reg.No.1805002255) & Thiru P.Jeyaprakash (Reg.No.1805002149) have not shaded the question Booklet number in their OMR answer sheets, Therefore, the OMR answer sheet of the said candidates were invalidated as per para 17-E(i)(g) & 17-E(i)(k) of the Commission's "Instructions to Applicants" and para 1 and para 7 of Instructions to Candidates at page 2 of OMR answer sheet which are as follows.
"17(E)-Penalty for violation of commission's Instructions in the objective type Examinations Para 17-E(i) - Invalidation of Answer Sheet Para 17-E(i)(g) "OMR answer sheet is not signed by the candidate at all required places."
Para 17-E(i)(k) "If the bubbles for Question Booklet Number are not shaded."
Para 1 & 7 of Instructions to Candidates in OMR Answer Sheet Para 1 "XXXX Further, after verifying all the details on completion of examination, you shall also sign in the appropriate box in Part-II of Page-I, failing which, your OMR Answer Sheet 5/10
will be invalidated."
Para 7 "XXXXX If the Question Booklet number is not shaded, the Answer sheet will be invalidated.
XXXXX"
Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the counter filed in W.P.No.30844 of 2023 are as under:
"6.Reason for invalidation of Unsigned OMR answer sheet:- The candidate's signature in the OMR answer sheet is very essential in order to prevent the risk of fraudulent activities, particularly impersonation. It is imperative for the candidate to affix her signature on the OMR answer sheet. If the signature of the candidate is not affixed in the OMR answer sheet, it will not be considered as a valid one. Further, the signature of the candidate in the OMR answer indicates that he/she has written it and agrees with the content. In this case, the candidate Tmt./Selvi.S.K.Pavithra has not signed in her OMR answer sheets (Afternoon Session). It is evident that she had violated the Commission's Instructions to applicants. Hence, her answer sheet was subjected to invalidation as per 17(E)(i)(g) of Commission's "Instructions to applicants" and para 1 of instructions to candidates in OMR answer sheet, 8.It is further respectfully submitted that the another petitioner Thiru A.Sudharsan (Reg.No.1805002165) has signed in part-I of OMR (Response portion) and hence the petitioner's OMR answer 6/10
sheet has been invalidated for violation of Commission's Instruction to applicants and Instructions printed in OMR answer sheet."
5. Mr.B.Vijay, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondentTamil Nadu Public Service Commission would submit that since the petitioners' have not followed the instructions properly and that they have disclosed their identity, thereby defeating the purpose of separation of OMR into two parts , their OMR had been invalidated and would submit that there is no ground to declare the instructions as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Having gone through the Instructions to Candidates it is clear that the OMR answer sheets contain two parts i.e. Part-I(Response portion, where answers are shaded) and Part-II (Personalised portion-containing details of the candidates), which are detachable. As per the said Instructions to Candidates printed at page 2 of the OMR, it is revealed that the candidates were instructed not to sign anywhere in the response portion (Part-I of OMR) of the answer sheet, but they have to affix their left hand thumb impression in the space provided at the bottom left of the Part-I after the examination was over. However, the petitioners 1 and 3 to 8 (except the 7/10
2nd petitioner viz.,G.Karthik) in W.P.No.29511 of 2023 and the 2nd petitioner in W.P.No.30844 of 2023 viz.,A.Sudharsan, contrary to the Instructions to Candidates and clause 12(B) of Commission's Instruction to Applicants, had signed in Part-I OMR(Response Portion), which amounts to violation of Instruction to Applicants and would lead to invalidation and thereby, their OMR answer sheets were correctly invalidated by the respondent.
8. Further, as per 17-E(i) (g) of Commission's Instructions if OMR answer sheet is not signed by the candidate at all required places, the answer sheet would be invalidated. As far as the second petitioner in W.P.No.29511 of 2023 viz., G.Karthik is concerned, he had not signed in personalized portion of OMR answer sheet for forenoon session and thereby, his OMR answer sheet was invalidated. As far as the first petitioner in W.P.No.30844 of 2023 viz.,S.K.Pavithra is concerned, she had not signed in her OMR answer sheet for afternoon session and thereby, her OMR answer sheet was invalidated as per 17-E(i) (g) of Commission's 'Instructions to applicants'.
9. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners in both the writ petitions had violated the Instructions to Applicants given by the respondent-Commission 8/10
and accordingly, their answer sheets have been correctly declared as invalid and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same.
10. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 18.09.2025 raa To The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.
raa 9/10
18.09.2025 10/10