S.Subramanian, v. Tamil Nadu Publi Service
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN S.Subramanian ... Petitioner Vs.
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Frazer Bridge Road, Represented by Secretary, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai 600 003.
...
Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent herein published on the website dated Nil whereby the petitioners question paper has been declared in invalidated and the consequential proceedings of the respondent in Memorandum No. 6320/EDA2/2016 dated 28.03.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to evaluate (Petitioners question 1/7
series No. 21383935 and Roll No. 260717035) and accordingly call the petitioner for the certificate verification and select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Typist or any other suitable posts covered under the Tamil Nadu Notification of the second respondent commission dated 09.08.2016 in Notification No. 15/2016 in Advertisement No.445 of 2016.
For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Suneetha For Respondent : Ms.G.Hema Standing Counsel for TNPSC
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the order of the respondent published on the website dated Nil whereby the petitioners question paper has been declared in invalidated and the consequential proceedings of the respondent in Memorandum No. 6320/EDA2/2016, dated 28.03.2017 and consequently, direct the respondent to evaluate (Petitioners question series No. 21383935 and Roll No. 260717035) 2/7
and accordingly, call the petitioner for the certificate verification and select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Typist or any other suitable posts covered under the Tamil Nadu Notification of the respondent/Commission dated 09.08.2016 in Notification No. 15/2016 in Advertisement No.445 of 2016.
2.Heard Mrs.S.Suneetha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.G.Hema, learned Standing Counsel appearing for TNPSC and perused the material available on record. 3.The respondent/Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) issued a Notification dated 09.08.2016 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment by direct recruitment against 5451 vacancies to the posts included in Group-IV services for the year 2015-2016. The petitioner, who is a graduate, has also applied for the Group-IV post and after issuance of hall-ticket, he appeared for 3/7
the examination conducted by the TNPSC on 06.11.2016. Subsequently, after evaluation, the TNPSC has released the mark and rank details of the candidates on 21.02.2017. However, in the said examination, his OMR answer sheet itself got invalidated on the ground that he has incorrectly shaded the question booklet number in his OMR answer sheet. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4.In the counter affidavit filed by the TNPSC, it is averred categorically that the basic and essential informations required in the OMR answer sheet, such as, candidate name, date of examination, name of examination and subject name, must be properly written as required. Likewise, Register Number, question paper booklet number and subject code must also be properly written and properly shaded in the respective box provided. Since the valuation process is automated, the machine will recognize only the shading made on the OMR sheet. 4/7
While that being the clear instructions given to each candidates as seen from Note (2)(iii), which is extracted below:- (iii) The answer sheet will be invalidated if the box provided for booklet series mentioned in the question paper is not shaded / incorrectly shaded.
in the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner has shaded the boxes incorrectly in OMR answer sheet for question booklet serial number, and this has been admitted by the petitioner himself in paragraph No.11 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 5.Therefore, since the entire evaluation system of each and every candidates is being programmed, the moment if any box provided in the OMR sheet is shaded incorrectly or kept it blank, the system itself will reject the candidature of the person concerned on the ground of invalidation. While that being so, the petitioner being a graduate 5/7
should have read the instructions in complete and should have shaded V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J, mps the OMR sheet in a proper manner. But, on the contrary, he has wrongly shaded "Question Booklet No.", and this Court also noticed the same on production of his OMR answer sheet. 6.In fine, for the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
22.12.2023 Index : Yes/No mps To The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai 600 003.
6/7