M.A.Ravivarma v. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

7. R.Devaraj, No.2, Ganapathi Lay Out, K.K.Pudur, (Koil Medu Road), Coimbatore – 641 032. 8. M.Venkatesh, 14-A, Ezhagaram Perumal Koil Street, Kottur, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari – 629 002. ..Appellants. Vs. 1. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai – 600 002. 2. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009...Respondents.PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the LettersPatent against the order of the learned single Judge passedin W.P.No.450 of 2009 dated 30.04.2009. Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus calling for all relevant recordsregarding the selection process involved in the impugnedselected list for oral test dated 08.12.2008 published by therespondent in the Group - I Examination 2006-2007 herein toquash the same as arbitrary, improper, illegal against therules and procedures of the respondent, thereby directing therespondent to cancel the results of the Main Examination inGroup - I Examination 2006-2007 conducted on 16.08.2008 andconsequently conduct fresh Main Examination for the same(W.P.450 of 2009) For Appellants :: Mr.K.M.Vijayan, Senior Counsel For Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen KumarFor Respondent -1:: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel Assisted by Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi Standing Counsel for T.N.P.S.C.For Respondent – 2:: Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, Govt. Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (6) W.A.No.982 of 20091. A.Natarajan, Nachinam Patty, Omalur, Salem – 636 351.2. P.Gunasakaran, 5/123, Sky Illam, Durai Kannan Street, Dharmapuri – 636 703.3. S.Panneer Selvam, 2/1055-1, Sri Balaji Illam, Govindadas Nagar, Manthoppu, Dharmapuri – 636 703.4. K.R.Balaji, 7-12/14, Panai Adiyan Koil Street, Bharat Nagar, Krishnapuram Colony, Madurai – 625 014...Appellants. Vs.1. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai – 600 002. 2. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009...Respondents. PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the LettersPatent against the order of the learned single Judge passedin W.P.No.787 of 2009 dated 30.04.2009. Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus calling for all relevant recordsregarding the selection process involved in the impugnedselected list for oral test dated 08.12.2008 published by the1st respondent in their official Website in the Group IExamination 2006-07 herein to quash the same as arbitrary,improper, illegal against the rules and procedures of the 1strespondent thereby directing the 1st respondent to cancel theresults of the Main Examination in Group I Examinations 2006-2007 conducted on 16-08-2008 and 17-08-2008 and consequentlyconduct fresh Main Examination for the same. (WP.No.787/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellants :: Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen KumarFor Respondent -1:: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel Assisted by Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi Standing Counsel for T.N.P.S.C.For Respondent – 2:: Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, Govt. Pleader (7) W.A.No.1041 of 2009K.Ramesh Kumar,S/o.K.Krishnan,No.4/163-C, North Street,Chennama Naicken Patty (PO),Dindigul – 624 004. ..Appellant.Vs.The Secretary,Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,Chennai – 600 002. ..Respondent.PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the LettersPatent against the order of the learned single Judge passedin W.P.No.30738 of 2008 dated 30.04.2009. Writ ofCertiorarified Mandamus directing the respondent to cancelthe results of the Main Examination in Group I Examination2006-2007 conducted by the respondent on 16.08.2008 and17.08.2008 due to incompetent valuation and unfair practiceand consequently to conduct fresh Main Examination for thesame. (WP.No.30738/2008) For Appellant :: Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen KumarFor Respondent :: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel Assisted by Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi Standing Counsel for T.N.P.S.C. (8) W.A.No.933 of 2009K.Dhakshinamoorthi,No.7-A, 4th Naidu Street,Kottur, Chennai – 600 085. ..Appellant.Vs. The Secretary,Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,Chennai – 600 002. ..Respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the LettersPatent against the order of the learned single Judgepassed in W.P.No.30554 of 2008 dated 30.04.2009. Writof Mandamus directing the respondent to cancel theresults of the Main Written Examination for Group IServices for the year 2006-2007 held on 16-8-08 and 17-8-08 and declare the same only after complying with thedirections of this Court dated 13-8-08 in WP.No.18780of 2008 and after proper evaluation and consequentlyconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment toGroup I Services in accordance with the AdvertisementNo.120 dated 01-08-2007 issued by the respondent forfiling up the Group I posts award costs.(WP.No.30554/2008) For Appellant :: Mr.S.HaridossFor Respondent :: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel Assisted by Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi Standing Counsel for T.N.P.S.C.(B) – Impleading Petitions (1) M.P.No.3 of 2009 in W.A.No.649 of 20091. A.N.Veerasalingam, S/o. A.R.Nagabhushanam, Plot No.57, Door No.1/1, Durairaj Street, Thirunagar, Chennai – 600 087.2. D.Kumar, S/o. T.Dhanapal, No.20, Bajanai Koil Street, Tiruttani Hills, Tiruttani – 631 209, Tiruvallur District. 3. N.Rajasekar, S/o. V.Natarajan, South Street, T.Palur – 612 904, Jayankondam Taluk. 4. V.Manikandan, S/o. V.Venugopal, No.246-E, Type – I, Block No.29, Neyveli – 7. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. G.S.Madhavan, S/o.C.Ganesan, No.11/15, Puthuvilai, Thallakulam Post, Kanyakumari District – 629 802. ..Petitioners. Vs. 1. M.A.Ravivarma, No.7, Balaji Nagar, A.G.S.Staff Colony, Keelakattalai, Chennai – 600 117. 2. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai – 600 002. ..Respondents. (Petitioners were impleaded as respondents 2 to 6 vide order ofthe Court dated 20.08.2009 passed in M.P.No.3 of 2009 in W.A.No.649 of2009) For Petitioners :: Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, Senior Counsel For Mr.P.Narayanamurthy For Respondent – 1 :: Mr.M.KamalanathanFor Respondent – 2 :: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel Assisted by Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi Standing Counsel for T.N.P.S.C. (2) M.P.No.3 of 2009 in W.A.No.650 of 20091. R.Sathiyathilagam, S/o.E.Ramachandran, No.14, Valluvan Street, Otteri, Chennai – 600 012. 2. Mariappan, S/o. P.Serma Pandy, No.9, 2nd Street, Vishveswara Nagar, Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091.3. S.Mohammed Arshad, S/o. K.Shahul Hameed, T-4, H-76, Mullai Apartments, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041. 4. D.Shankara Moorthy, S/o. K.Dharman, No.14-A, Radhika Avenue, P.N.Pudur, Coimbatore – 641 041. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. P.Murugakumar, S/o.Nagatholuvu, No.62, V.Velur Post, Jakkarpalayam Via., Udumalpet Taluk – 642 202.6. P.Rathinasamy, S/o. Pongianna Gounder, Thottiyapalayam RS, Kavundachipalayam Post, V.Vellode via, Erode – 638 112. 7. M.Ramamurthy, S/o.S.Muniyappan, No.71, Arignar Anna Street, Kachapeshwarar Nagar, Kanchipuram – 631 501. ..Petitioners.Vs.1. D.Ganesh Babu, G-2, Alamu Apartments, Ponnagar, Trichy – 620 001. 2. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai – 600 002. ..Respondents. (Petitioners were impleaded as respondents 2 to 8 vide order ofthe Court dated 19.08.2009 made in M.P.No.3 of 2009 in W.A.No.650 of2009.) For Petitioners:: Mr.R.Subramanian, Senior Counsel For Mr.Suchit Anant PalandeFor Respondent-1: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel For Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen KumarFor Respondent – 2 :: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel Assisted by Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi Standing Counsel for T.N.P.S.C. ITEMS (3) to (14) – IMPLEADING PETITIONS FILED IN W.A.No.652 of 2009(3) M.P.No.5 of 2009 in W.A.No.652 of 20091.Kandasamy,S/o.Sankarasubbu,Plot No.7, Priya Nagar IV,Uoorapakkam,Kanchipuram District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.T.K.Prabhakaran,No.254 B/1, 5th Cross Street,Kamaraj Nagar,Thuraipadi, Vellore 632 002.3.G.Vanitha,W/o.M.Moorthi,Veerattagaram Village. ..Petitioners. (4) M.P.No.6 of 2009 in W.A.No.652 of 20091.R.Rajaram, S/o.Mr.M.Ramasamy,159-B,Sundarampillai Nagar,Tondiarpet, Chennai 600 0812. K.Thangiah,S/o.Mr.K.Kumaravel,818, Mullai Nagar, SankarankovilTirunelveli 627 756.3. M.Kanagavalli,D/o.Mr.A.Muthukumar,15 H, Railway Line Street,Cheranmahadevi,Tirunelveli District.4.R.Alagumeena,W/o.Mr.V.Rajasekaran,707, 52nd Cross Street,Thiruvalluvar Nagar,Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041 5.G.Sathiya Narayanan,No.5/17, Parthasarathy Street,Chinnasekkadu, Manali,Chennai 60 068.6. M.Manikandan, S/o.Mr.M.Mathuramani, D1, Telephone Quarters, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. ..Petitioners.(5)M.P.No.7 of 2009 in W.A.No.652 of 20091. A.Muthukumar,S/o.M.Alagumuthu,Plot No.18, New No.29,Kumarapuram, Chrompet,Chennai-44. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. S.Sangeetha,S/o.Shanmugam,No.28, IInd Street,Old State Bank Colony,West Tambaram,Chennai-45.3. P.Periasamy,S/o.D.Perumal,Mallapuram,Somenahalli (Post),Indur (via), Dharmapuri (District).4. A.R.Sivaraman,S/o.M.Rajan11/13, Ramarkovil Street,Vellarugam Palayam,Vivaliyur (Post),Thondamuthur (via), Coimbatore 641 109.5. N.Kalidoss,Muthuvayal Post,Paramakudi Taluk,Ramanathapuram District.6. B.Senthil Kumar,S/o.S.Balasubramanian,RS-11, Foreshore Estate,Chennai – 287. N.Rajasekar,S/o.V.Natarajan,South Street,T.Palur – 612 904Jayankondam Taluk,Ariyalur Taluk. 8. M.Sivakumar,S/o.K.Manickam,1/28, Kalla Street,Thalakkudi (PO),Lalgudi Taluk,Trichy 621 216.9. M.Vijayaraghavan,S/o.late B.Muthukrishnan,14, Vimal Nagar (Ambal Nagar)Guduvanchery, Chennai 603 202.10.M.Malarvizhi,D/o.Govindarajan,Sedankadi,Ammapalayam (Post)Attur Taluk, Salem 636 114...Petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (6) M.P.No.8 of 2009 in W.A.No.652 of 20091.R.Sadeesh,S/o.Rengaraj,51, Usilan Gulam II Street,Pudukottai – 622 001.2. J.Nivas,No.4/42, 14th Cross Street,Thiruvalluvar Nagar,Kodungaiyur,Chennai 600 118.3. V.R.Subulaxmi,1313/1, Priyam Apartments,13th Main Road,Anna Nagar, Chennai.4. K.Selvarasu,S/o.R.Kumarasamy,AP 512, J-Block,8th Street, 15th Main Road,Anna Nagar (W), Chennai...Petitioners.(The petitioners in M.P.Nos.5 to 8 {i.e., Items (3) to (6)} have beenimpleaded as party respondents vide order of the Court dated15.06.2009)(7)M.P.No.4 of 2009 in W.A.No.652 of 20091. S.Leelavathy, D/o. Philip S. Sakthivel, 12220, 20th Main Road, Anna Nagar (West), Chennai 40.2. S.Sakthivel, S/o. R. Sivasamy, Ram Iyyan Illam, 75, 3rd Street, Indira Gardens Kamarajar Road, Upplipalayam Post, Coimbatore 641 015.3. M. Suganya D/o. K. Mariappan T-2, III Floor B Block Trisul Apartments 82/24, East Jones Road, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.4. R. Ramya Devi, D/o. P. V. Ramasamy, 22, Balambalpuranm, Vangal Road, Karur 639 001.5. K. Kayalvizhi, W/o.M. Manoharan 144, Dharmakartha Street Vangalpuram, Karur 639 006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. S. Selvakumar, S/o. M. Samykannu, 1/185-1, Bharathidasan Nagar, Nallipalayam, Namakkal 637 003.7. V. Anbu, S/o. Vediyappan Gopalapatty, Ettiyampatty Post, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District8. P. Ravikumar S/o. P. Palanisamy Neruppur Post, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District. 9. M. Ekambaram,S/o. Molagusamy, Kambainallur Post, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District10. D. Ramesh Babu, S/o. C. Duraisamy, 8/1, Mettu Street, Sowriyur Post Jalakantapuram (via), Salem-636 501...Petitioners.(8)M.P.No.10 of 2009 in W.A.No.652 of 2009 1. P. Sudha No.8L R.G. Layout 6th Street Karuvampalayam Tirupur 641 604.2. S. Selvarani F 14, Shanthi Nagar 1st Street Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088.3. R. Priya, C-17, Housing Unit II, Periyakollaptti, Salem 08.4. S. Thenmozhi, No.1, Srinagar First Street, Medical College Road, Thanjavur 4.5. S. Kavitha, No.16/6, Ayyasamipillai Street, Opposite to Dharshan Ads, Triplicane, Chennai-56. Dr.K.Kannan, No.79/24, N.K.P.Raju Street, Cumbum 625 516 Then District.7. R.ARunagiri, No.28, Iind Cross Street, TNHB Quarters, Walajahpet, Vellore District 632 513 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. N.C.Kalaivani, No.3/36, Mohanapuri II Street, Brindavan Nagar, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088.9.K.Gandhi, Mittadhninnahalli Post, Laligam South, Dharapuri District 636 804. ..Petitioners.(9) M.P.No.12 of 2009 in W.A.No.652 of 20091. T.Balamurugan, S/o.N.Thenmalaiyandi 4/187 (1), Mullai Street, Kurinji Nagar, Aathikulam Madurai 14.2. V.Mohana Chandran. S/o.S.EVadamalai Muthu, 5/20, West Street, Silamlai Post, Theni District.3. C.Muthukumaran, S/o.M.Chidambaram, 3/64, Cuddalore Main Road, Seplanatham and Post, Via Neyveli 607 8024. R.Komahan, S/o.S.Renganathan, 3/52, Okkaanatham, Pillichikuzhi, Oodayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur.5. M.Pazhanisamy, Plot No.67, Malleswari Nagar, III Cross Street, Selaiyur Post, Madambakkam, Chennai 600 0736. R.Venkateshkumar, 181/3, Poosaripatty (Post), Omalur Taluk, Salem District.7. A.Lalitha, Manivizhundan South Pudur, Manivizhhundan (post) Attur Taluk, Salem District...Petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (10) M.P.No.13 of 2009 in W.A.No.652 of 20091. D.Kumar, S/o.T.Dhanapal, No.20, Bajanai Koil Street, Tiruttani Hills, Tiruttani 631 209 Tiruvallur District.2. B.Sundaresan, S/o.P.Balasubramanian, 330,Harveypatty, Thirupparankundram (Post), Madurai 625 005.3. G.Gopi, S/o.S.Govindan, Kailash Nagar, Omalur Road, Tharamangalam (Post), Salem District.4. E.Vijaya Sakthi, S/o.Elumalai, No.15, 14th Street, Kalpakkam.5. A.Valli, No.12 G2, AIR Colony, Palavakkam, Chennai 600 041...Petitioners.(The petitioners in M.P.Nos.4,10,12 and 13 {i.e., Items (7) to(10)} were impleaded as party respondents vide order of the Court dated04.08.2009) (11) M.P.No.14 of 2009 in W.A.No.652 of 2009 S.Thanapathi, S/o.Thiru.N.Sargunaraj, No.5/7, Kuttan Kasba Mela Theru, Kuttam, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ..Petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (12) M.P.No.15 of 2009 in W.A.No.652 of 2009 R.Revathi, D/o.M.Rajkumar, No.8D, V.V.Colony,Adambakkam,Chennai-600 088...Petitioner.(13) M.P.No.16 of 2009 in W.A.No.652 of 20091. V.Nandakumar,No.18, Ammachar Koil Street,Kaveripakkam, Tindivanam.2. P.Balaji, S/o.Pandurangan, No.3-A, Dhandapani Nagar, Semmandalam, Cuddalore-607 001.3. E.Vijayasakthi,W/o.M.Manogaran,No.15, 14th Street,Kalpakkam 603 102.Kanchipuram District. 4. B.Kanchana, W/o.M.Sivakumar, No.25, Mynaa, DAE Township, Anupuram and Post, Kanchipuram District 603 127.5. S.Manokaran, S/o.R.Subramanian, No.90, PWD Quarters, Tallakulam, Madurai 625 0026. Deepa,D/o.N.Packiam,No.3/526-17, MGR Nagar,Paramakudi 623 707Ramanathapuram District.7. M.Santhi,D/o.N.C.Munusamy,Kabilakurichi Kabilarmalai Post,Namakkal District.8. A.Shanthikumari,D/o.R.Ayyappan,No.85, Parameshwari Ammal Lane,Jeganathar Street, Theni 625531 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. K.C.S.Arunabharathi,S/o.K.C.Subramanian,No.13, Kattbomman Veethi,Surampatti, Erode District 638 00910. S.Ramamoorthy,S/o.P.Sankaranarayanan,No.1/14, West Street,Ramanathapuram Post,Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District 627 756 11.Dr.K.Kannan,No.79/24, NKP Raju Street,Cumbum 625 516, Theni District.12. N.Dilipkumar,S/o.S.Nagarajan,No.1, 1st Floor, Thiruvapudayar Koil Sannathi Street,Sellur, Madurai-213.K.Indu Bala,D/o.C.Kumaresan,Devi Illam,Perumankuzhi Road,Karungal Post,Kanyakumari District.14.B.Mathumathi,W/o.G.Annadurai,Anbagam, VOC Nagar,Vaigai Vadakarai,Thiruppuvanam 630 611. Sivagangai District.15.M.Vani Easwari,No.38-A1, Main Road,Pothanur, Namakkal District 638 18116.N.Devanathan,No.126, Thangaraj Nagar,Tirupapuliyur, Cuddalore 607 002.17.S.Senthilkumar,No.1/19, Veerakkal Post,N.Panjampatti via,Dindigul 624 303.18.E.Vennilla,No.23, Amirthanandamayi Street,Maruti Ram Nagar, Ayapakkam,Chennai-7719.Dr.S.Sangeetha,No.28, Old State Bank Colony,2nd Street, West Tambaram,Chennai-45 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

20. Dr.D.N.Priyadharshini,No.6, Narmada Street,Balaji Nagar, Irumbuliyur,Tambaram, Chennai-5921.S.Ashok Kumar,No.81, Jansi Nagar,V-Chatram, Erode-422.P.Gandhimathi,W/o.R.Anandan,No.329/207, Erode Road,Perundurai 638 052,Erode District.23.N.Mathivanan,S/o.K.Narayanan,No.51, Vadivel Nagar,Kanchipuram 631 50224.S.Kavitha,No.16/6, Ayyasami Pillai Street,Opp.Dharshan Ads, Triplicane,Chennai 600 005.25.R.Sukumar,S/o.A.Ramachandran,Ayyakkannur, Guziliamparai Post,Vedasandur Taluk, Dindigul District,Pincode 624 703.26.K.Saravanakumar,No.3/101, 2nd Street,Indian Bank Colony,Narayanapuram, Madurai. 27.D.Mahesh Babu,No.426, Ganapathy Nagar,K.K.Road, Villupuram 605 60228.S.Parthiban,Meenachivalasu,K.F.Palayam (B) Oddanchatram Taluk,Dindigul Distict 624 61629.G.Natarajan,S/o.Gopal,Aeriyur Village,Mallapalli Post,Tirupattur 635 651 30. Dr.S.Suresh,S/o.S.Subbiah,No.16-E, VMC Complex,Bungalow Street,Kovilpatti 628 501Tuticorin District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

31.M.Deepa Shankari,D/o.V.Mani,No.36/1, Mela Agraharam,Krishnarayapuram,Karur District 639 102.32.A.Meena Priya Darshini,C-14, Customs Ezhilagam,No.75, Church Road,Perungudi, Chennai-9633.P.Maheswaran,No.109/53-A6, Near Maranatha Church,T.B.Road, Usilampati Madurai 625 532.34.E.Muniyasamy,S/o.G.Easwaran,AH.227, 8th Main Road,Anna Nagar, Chennai-4035.B.Shri Devi,D/o.V.Balachandran,AH-227, 8th Main Road,Anna Nagar, Chennai-4036.Dr.A.Jeeva,S/o.Dr.M.Ambeth,No.17, Thirumurugan Nagar,Srinivasapuram,Mayiladuthurai 609 001.37.S.Karthick,No.1/1, S.V.Palayam and Post,Sankarapuram Taluk, Villupuram District 606 40138.C.Manimohan,S/o.G.Chitavel,No.3/684, Chidambaram Nagar,Sattur 626 203Virudhunagar District.39.Dr.V.R.Veerabadran,S/o.R.V.Rengasamy,A.Mukkulam,Virudhunagar District 630 611.40.P.Kumar,S/o.Ponnusamy,Beemarapatti Village and Post,Thanipadi Via,Thandarampattu Taluk,Tiruvannamalai District 606 70841.R.Sankara Narayanan, H-129, Kamarajar Salai, Anbu Nagar, Tirunelveli. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

42.T.Shanmugavalli,A-9, 2nd Floor, No.3, South Canal Bank Road,Mandaveli, Chennai 600 02843.M.Veerappan,No.2/123, East Street,Thathur Post, Ariyalur District 621 70144.T.Selvam,No.14-C/18, Kanaga Subbaraya Street,Kanchipuram 631 50145.M.R.Sibi Chakravarthi,DRO Bungalow,Yercaud Road, Hasthampatti,Salem. ..Petitioners.(The petitioners in M.P.Nos.14 to 16 {i.e., Items (11) to (13)} wereimpleaded as party respondents vide order of the Court dated20.08.2009)(14) M.P.No.17 of 2009 in W.A.No.652 of 2009 V.R.Subbulakshmi, D/o.D.Veliah, 1313/L, Piriyam Apartments, 13th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai-40 ..Petitioner.(The petitioner in M.P.No.17 has been impleaded as partyrespondent vide order of the Court dated 27.08.2009)Vs.{Common Respondents in Items (3) to (14)}1. V.Balasubramanian, No.3, Sivan Sannathi Street, Porayar, Nagapattinam.2. V.Karthikeyan, No.5A, 3rd Street, Kamarajar Nagar, P & T Colony (PO), Thanjavur.3. M.Selvaraj, 6186-1, M.G.Illam, Bye Pass Road, Palacode, Dharmapuri – 636 808. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. C.Sangu, No.14/223, Near Nataraja Theatre, Elampillai (PO), Sankari (TK), Salem – 637 502.5. V.Arivukannan, No.154, Kamban Street, Cauvery Nagar, Kulithalai, Karur. 6. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai – 600 002...Respondents.For Petitioners in M.P.No.5/09:: Mr.R.Achuthan For Petitioners in M.P.No.6/09:: Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, Senior Counsel For Mr.P.Narayanamurthy For Petitioners in M.P.No.7/09:: Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, Senior Counsel For M/s.N.R.Rajagopalan & Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan For Petitioners in M.P.No.8/09:: Ms.R.Vaigai For M/s.N.R.Rajagopalan & Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan For Petitioners in M.P.No.4/09:: Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Counsel For Mr.R.G.NarendhiranFor Petitioners in M.P.No.10/09:: Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel For Mrs.C.UmaFor Petitioners in M.P.No.12/09:: Mr.Arvind P.Datar, Senior Counsel For M/s.N.R.Rajagopalan & Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan For Petitioners in M.P.No.13/09:: Mr.N.Thiagarajan, Senior Counsel For M/s.N.R.Rajagopalan & Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan For Petitioners in M.P.No.14/09 :: Mr.N.S.SivakumarFor Petitioners in M.P.No.15/09 :: Mr.P.Rajkumar For Petitioners in M.P.No.16/09 :: Mr.Suchit Anant PalandeFor Petitioners in M.P.No.17/09 :: Mr.K.Subramaniam For Respondents 1 to 5 :: Mr.N.G.R.Prasad (in all the above M.Ps.) For Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen KumarFor Respondent – 6 :: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel (in all the above M.Ps.) assisted by Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (15) M.P.No.4 of 2009 in W.A.No.653 of 20091. K.Shanthi,2. S.A.Nagarajan,3. K.Priya,4. S.Kandasamy,5. Dr.V.A.Anand,6. M.Vijayaraghavan, C/o. K.Santhi, 4/894, T.N.H.B. Colony, Ettayapuram Road, Tuticorin. ..Petitioners.Vs.1. M.Chandrasekaran, 2B, Classic Apartments, 8B, V.V.Colony, Adambakkam, Chennai – 88.2. K.N.Sakthivel, AP-512, 8th Street, J-Block, 16th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 040.3. T.Arasu, AP-706/48, 1st Street, H Block, 12th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 040.4. K.Senthilnathan, D-32, 15th Street, 4th Cross, Periyar Nagar, Chennai – 600 082.5. P.Usha, 56/40, Subash Chandra Boase Street, Five Road, Erumapatti (PO), Namakkal – 637 013.6. M.Sandhanam, 2-43, Pullagoundam Patti (PO), Thevur, Sankari, Salem – 637 104. 7. R.Devaraj, No.2, Ganapathi Lay Out, K.K.Pudur, (Koil Medu Road), Coimbatore – 641 032. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. M.Venkatesh, 14-A, Ezhagaram Perumal Koil Street, Kottur, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari – 629 002. 9. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai – 600 002. 10. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009...Respondents. (Petitioners 1 to 6 have been impleaded as party respondents 3 to 8 vide order of the Court dated 15.06.2009 passed in M.P.No.4 of2009 in W.A.No.653 of 2009) For Petitioners :: Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondents 1 to 8 :: Mr.K.M.Vijayan, Senior Counsel For Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen KumarFor Respondents – 9 :: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel Assisted by Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi Standing Counsel for T.N.P.S.C.For Respondent – 10 :: Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, Govt. Pleader (C) – Impleading Petition with a prayer in the nature of Cross AppealM.P.No.11 of 2009 in W.A.No.652 of 2009 1. M.Indumathi,D/o.A.Muthukrishnanan,South Maharajapuram Street,Puliampatti, Pavadithoppu Area,Aruppukottai 626 101 2. A.R.Sivaraman,11/13, Ramar Koil Street,VellarugampalayamViraliyur (post) Thondamuthur (Via)Coimbatore 600 1013. B.Geetha Baharathy, 18/1069, LIC Colony, JBN Anna Nagar West, Chennai 600 101. 4. R.Menaka,2/1012, Dr.Ambedkar Street,Periyar Nagar, Madipakkam,Chennai 600 091 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. S.Eswaran, No.16th Ward, Ambedkar Nagar, Harur (Post) Dharmapuri District..Petitioners.Vs.1. The Secretary,Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,Chennai – 600 002.2. V.Balasubramanian, No.3, Sivan Sannathi Street, Porayar, Nagapattinam.3. V.Karthikeyan, No.5A, 3rd Street, Kamarajar Nagar, P & T Colony (PO), Thanjavur.4. M.Selvaraj, 6186-1, M.G.Illam, Bye Pass Road, Palacode, Dharmapuri – 636 808.5. C.Sangu, No.14/223, Near Nataraja Theatre, Elampillai (PO), Sankari (TK), Salem – 637 502.6. V.Arivukannan, No.154, Kamban Street, Cauvery Nagar, Kulithalai, Karur. ..Respondents. For Petitioners :: Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Senior Counsel For M/s.N.R.Rajagobalan & T.C.Gopalakrishnan.For Respondent – 1 :: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel For Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi Standing Counsel for TNPSCFor Respondents 2 to 6 :: Mr.N.G.R.Prasad For Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen Kumar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (D) – Writ Petitions(1) W.P.No.11486 of 2009K.Sudalai Muthu,S/o.M.Kanapathy,Door No.9, Room No.101,Kondi Chetty Street,Parrys, Chennai – 104. ..Petitioner.Vs.1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi.3. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary, Government Estate, Chennai – 2. 4. Manitha Neyam Institute, rep. by its Chairman Mr.Saidai Sa.Duraisamy, No.28, 1st Main Road, C.I.T. Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai – 35. ..Respondents. PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India for the issuance of a writ of mandamusdirecting the 2nd respondent herein to conduct an impartialinvestigation, enquiry and take appropriate action againstthe 3nd and 4th respondents in respect of the irregularitiesand malpractices committed in the selection process by the 3rdrespondent in Group – I Examination 2006-2007 pursuant to thejudgment of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.Nos.29831/2008 & Batchdated 30.04.2009 and file a report before this Hon’ble Courtand consequentially declare the selection by the 3rdrespondent in Group – I Examination 2006-2007 as null andvoid and pass such further or other order as this Hon’bleCourt may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of thecase and thus render justice. For Petitioner :: Mr.K.M.Vijayan, Senior Counsel For Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen KumarFor Respondent – 1 :: Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, Govt. PleaderFor Respondent – 3 :: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel Assisted by Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi, Standing Counsel for T.N.P.S.C.For Respondent – 4:: Mr.R.Krishnamurthi, Senior Counsel For M/s.G.Vijay Anand Associates. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (2 to 6) W.P.No.12840 to 12844 of 2009S.Srinivasan,No.AB-17, Tod Hunter Nagar,Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. ..Petitioner inW.P.No.12840 of 2009. S.Krishna Kumar,No.3-30, North Street,Melachokkanathapuram (PO),Bodinayakanur (TK),Theni – 625 582. ..Petitioner inW.P.No.12841 of 2009.S.Subramanian,No.126, Dr.Ambedkar Nagar,Eri Scheme, Mugappair East,Chennai – 600 037. ..Petitioner inW.P.No.12842 of 2009.K.Sumathi,No.52, I.C.L. Home Town,Noombal,Thiruverkadu, Chennai – 600 077. ..Petitioner inW.P.No.12843 of 2009.B.S.Saravanan Kumaran,No.4B, Police Officers Quarters,Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. ..Petitioner inW.P.No.12844 of 2009. Vs.The Secretary,Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,Chennai – 600 002. ..Sole Respondent in all theW.Ps. PRAYER: Petitions filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India for the issuance of writ mandamusdirecting the respondent to value the main examination answer https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ papers of the petitioner, in each of the writ petitions, inthe Group – I Examination 2006-2007 and publish the marksobtained by the petitioner, in each of the writ petitions,and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Courtmay deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case andthus render justice. For Petitioner in all the W.Ps. :: Mr.C.SivakumarFor Respondent in all the W.Ps.:: Mr.N.R.Chandran, SeniorCounsel Assisted by Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi, Standing Counsel for T.N.P.S.C. (7) W.P.No.13786 of 20091. P.Balamurugan, S/o.Ponnusamy, Kuppur (PO), Dharmapuri – 636 702.2. C.Radha, D/o.Chinnathambi, Ambal Puram 2nd Street, Seekalai, Karaikudi.3. P.Mahalakshmi, No.1A, Angaleswari Illam, Mettu Colony, Pudhupatti Road, Katachanenthal, Madurai. ..Petitioners. Vs.The Secretary,Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,Chennai – 600 002. ..Respondent. PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India for the issuance of a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to call for all relevant recordsrelating to the selection process involved in the impugnedselected list cum allotment order dated 03.06.2009 publishedby the respondent in the Group – I Examination 2006-2007herein, to quash the same as improper, illegal, against therules and procedures of the respondent, due to incompetentvaluation and unfair practice, thereby directing therespondent to cancel the Main Examination conducted on16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008 by the respondent in Group – IExamination 2006-2007, and consequently conduct fresh Main https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Examination for the same and to pass such further or otherorders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in thecircumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioners :: Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen KumarFor Respondent :: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel Assisted by Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi, Standing Counsel for T.N.P.S.C.(8) W.P.No.13016 of 2009K.Ravijayaram,No.1, E – Block,Egmore Police Quarters, Chennai – 600 008. ..Petitioner. Vs. The Secretary,Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,Chennai – 600 002. ..Respondent. PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India for the issuance of a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus calling for all relevant recordsregarding the selection process involved in the impugnedpreliminary examination results dated 25.04.2008 published bythe respondent in the Group- I Examination 2006-2007 hereinto quash the same as improper, illegal, against the rules andprocedures of the respondent, due to wrong key answers andunfair valuation, thereby directing the respondent to cancelthe preliminary examination results in Group – I Examination2006-2007 and consequently, conduct fresh preliminaryexamination for the same and to pass such further or otherorders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in thecircumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner :: Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen Kumar For Respondent :: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel Assisted by Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi, Standing Counsel for T.N.P.S.C.(9) W.P.No.13017 of 2009A.Kalingaraj,No.39-G, Mandapa Street,Bharathiyar Nagar,Madurantakam,Kanchipuram – 603 306...Petitioner. Vs. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Secretary,Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,Chennai – 600 002. ..Respondent. PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India for the issuance of a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus calling for all relevant recordsregarding the selection process involved in the impugnedpreliminary examination results dated 25.04.2008 published bythe respondent in the Group- I Examination 2006-2007 hereinto quash the same as improper, illegal, against the rules andprocedures of the respondent, due to wrong key answers andunfair valuation, thereby directing the respondent to cancelthe preliminary examination results in Group – I Examination2006-2007 and consequently, conduct fresh preliminaryexamination for the same and to pass such further or otherorders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in thecircumstances of the case and thus render justice. For Petitioner :: Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen Kumar For Respondent :: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel Assisted by Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi, Standing Counsel for T.N.P.S.C (E) – Writ Appeal with a prayer to expunge the adverse findings.W.A.No.1090 of 2009Ma.Vaavoosi (Course Director),S/o.Thiru Mariappan,Saidai. Sa.Duraisamy’s Manitha Neyam I.A.S., I.P.S., Free CoachingCentre,Having its office at No.28, 1st Main Road,C.I.T.Nagar, Nandanam,Chennai – 600 035. Vs.1. S/Senthil Kumar, S/o.Suruli, No.7/3, CPWD Quarters, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.2. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai – 600 002. ..Respondents. PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the LettersPatent against the order of the learned single Judgepassed in W.P.No.29831 of 2008 dated 30.04.2009.Writ of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mandamus directing the respondent to re-evaluate thepetitioners main answer papers in the Group-I servicesMain Examination conducted by the respondent on16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008 by comparing the same with thelast 3 candidates selected in each category(W.P.29831/08)For Appellant :: Mr.R.Krishnamurthi, Senior Counsel For M/s.G.Vijay Anand AssociatesFor Respondent –2 :: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel Assisted by Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi Standing Counsel for T.N.P.S.C. J U D G M E N TTHE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICEAll these appeals, in Group (A) above, seek to challenge thecommon judgment and order dated 30.4.2009 rendered by a learned singleJudge of this Court (V.Ramasubramanian,J.) in W.P. Nos.29831, 29832,30554, 30738 to 30740, 30742 to 30744, 30770, 30771, 30794 to 30796,30798, 30900 of 2008, 450, 787, 989, 3130, 3131 of 2009 and W.P. (MD)Nos.11731, 12390 of 2008, 63 and 231 of 2009 and connectedmiscellaneous petitions, whereby the learned single Judge has disposedof the writ petitions filed by some of the appellants herein bygranting only limited relief to three petitioners. All those writpetitions basically sought to challenge the results of the mainexamination for the Group-I Services for the year 2006-2007 conductedon 16/17.8.2008 by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission wherein theappellants were the unsuccessful candidates. These petitions were thethird round of petitions by the unsuccessful candidates. 2 (i). Apart from this common prayer, some of the petitions (e.g.,W.P. No.30554 of 2008) also sought a direction that the results of thesaid examination be declared after complying with the directions ofanother learned single Judge of this Court (P. Jyothimani, J.) dated13.8.2008 issued earlier in W.P. No.18780 of 2008 and other writpetitions concerning this very examination. The petitions before P.Jyothimani, J. were the second round of petitions by the unsuccessfulcandidates. Some of the petitions (i.e., W.P. Nos.29832 and 29831 of2008) sought a prayer that there should be a revaluation of the answersin the main examination by comparing them with the last threecandidates selected in each category. Some others (i.e., W.P.Nos.30738 and 30739 of 2008) sought that the main examination itself beconducted afresh. Some petitions (e.g., W.P.Nos.30740, 30743 andW.P.No.30770 of 2008) sought that the main examination be conductedafresh on the basis of the findings given by the Expert Committee inW.P. No.19121 of 2008, and as per the directions issued in W.P. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No.18888 of 2008, which were the petitions decided in the group ofpetitions by P. Jyothimani, J. along with the above referredW.P.No.18780 of 2008. 2(ii). Some petitions e.g., W.P.No.30794, 30795 and 30796 of 2008sought the examination to be conducted as per the directions issued inW.P. No.12127 of 2008. W.P. No.12127 of 2008 was the first round ofpetition by the unsuccessful candidates and it was decided by N. PaulVasanthakumar, J. on 31.7.2008, wherein the learned single Judge haddirected appointment of an Expert Committee, since according to thelearned Judge some of the questions were confusing and some of theanswers in the Preliminary Examination were not correctly assessed. 2(iii) W.P. No.30795 of 2008 filed by one M.A. Ravivarma prior tothe oral examination sought to challenge the provisional list for theoral examination. This petitioner filed another Writ Petition No.3131of 2009 after the oral test, which sought to challenge all theproceedings of the examination. All these petitions have been disposedof by V.Ramasubramanian, J. by his common judgment dated 30.04.2009,which is impugned herein. 3. Some of the unsuccessful candidates, such as, S.Srinivasan andothers have filed fresh original writ petitions at this stage beingW.P.Nos.12840 to 12844 of 2009, 13786, 13016 and 13017 of 2009. Thesepetitions seek to challenge the results of the Group – I MainExamination of the year 2006-2007, and seek a direction to conductfresh preliminary examination. There is one more original writ petitionbeing W.P.No.11486 of 2009 filed by one K.Sudalai Muthu, an advocate,who has arrayed Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi as thesecond respondent therein. This petition seeks an investigation andappropriate action against the T.N.P.S.C. and one Manitha Neyam FreeCoaching Centre, Chennai, which is a coaching institute coaching thecandidates appearing in competitive examinations, and which centre issupposed to have indulged in some malpractices in this examination, andagainst which centre there are certain observations made in thejudgment rendered by V.Ramasubramaniam, J. All these fresh petitionsare placed in Group (D) above. 4. Some of the candidates who were successful in this examinationhave taken out petitions to implead themselves as party respondents inthe above appeals. All those impleading petitioners contend that thereis no reason to entertain these appeals and the result of theexamination be left undisturbed. These impleading petitions are groupedin Group (B) above. 5. Some of the successful candidates i.e., one M.Indumathi andothers have taken out a separate miscellaneous petition by M.P.No.11 of2009 in one of these writ appeals being W.A.No.652 of 2009 to impleadthemselves as party respondents. Their impleading petition, however, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has a prayer in the nature of a Cross Appeal. These impleadingpetitioners submit that there is no reason for the unsuccessfulcandidates to make any grievance. These successful candidates contendthat inasmuch as they were not given notice in either of the earlierthree rounds of petitions, their submissions were not effectivelyplaced in the course of the earlier three judgments. According to them,the answers given as the key answers at the preliminary examinationwere correct answers and that this aspect has not been placedeffectively by the T.N.P.S.C. in the earlier rounds of litigations.They have applied to implead, in view of the public notice issued bythis Court to the successful candidates. They submit that, in any case,no prejudice has been caused to the unsuccessful candidates in anymanner whatsoever under the impugned judgment, and therefore, there wasno need to disturb the result of the examination. This impleadingpetition has been separately shown in Group (C) above. 6. Last but not the least, is the writ appeal filed by the abovereferred Coaching Centre being W.A.No.1090 of 2009, which seeks toexpunge the adverse findings rendered in the impugned judgment againstit. It is shown under Group (E) above. 7. The facts leading to this litigation are as follows :-The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred toas 'TNPSC') notified 172 vacancies in the Group-I Services in the Stateof Tamil Nadu, vide a notification dated 1.8.2007. They were for theposts such as Deputy Collector, Deputy Superintendent of Police(Category-I), Commercial Tax Officer, Deputy Registrar of Co-operativeSocieties, District Registrar, Assistant Director of Rural DevelopmentDepartment (Panchayat) / Personal Assistant (Development) to Collector,District Employment Officer and Divisional Officer in the Fire & RescueServices Department. The last date for submitting the applications andreceiving them was 31.8.2007. The date fixed for the PreliminaryExamination was 16.12.2007, though the examination was actually held on23.12.2007. The Preliminary Examination consisted of a single paper inGeneral Knowledge. The paper was supposed to be of Degree standard andwas of Objective Type. It was to contain 200 questions, each questioncarrying 1.5 marks, totalling 300 marks.8. Clause 10 of the said notification laid down the procedure ofselection, which reads as follows :- "10. Procedure of Selection : The selection will be made in three successivestages, viz. (i) Preliminary Examination for selection ofcandidates for admission to the Main Written Examination and(ii) Main Written Examination (iii) followed by an Oral Testin the shape of an Interview. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Preliminary Examination is meant to serve as ascreening test only. The marks obtained in the PreliminaryExamination by the candidates who are declared qualified foradmission to the Main Written Examination will not be countedfor determining their final order of merit. The number ofcandidates to be admitted to the Main Written Examinationwill be exactly ten times the number of candidates to berecruited having regard to the rule of reservation ofappointments.Final selection will be made on the basis of thetotal marks obtained by the candidates at the Main WrittenExamination and Oral Test taken together subject to the ruleof reservation of appointments and the options exercised bythe candidates in the order of preference in which they wishto be selected. Candidates selected in the Main WrittenExamination should attend the Oral Test. A candidate who hasnot appeared in any one of the papers in the Main WrittenExamination or Oral Test will not be considered forselection, even if he/she secures qualifying marks forselection in the Main Written Examination. (For furtherdetails please refer paragraph 22(b) of the Institutions,etc. to candidates)."9. It is material to note that after holding of the PreliminaryExamination on 23.12.2007, some of the candidates filed theirobjections pointing out that the questions posed in the PreliminaryExamination were wrong. These objections were, however, not filedwithin the period of three days from the date of the examination, whichis the requirement as per Instruction No.42 of the Instructions to theCandidates. Consequently, the objections were not considered. Theresult of the examination was declared on 25.4.2008. Some of thecandidates who did not clear the examination were also of the view thatsome questions, though answered by them correctly, were not assessed ascorrect answers because the key answers prepared by the TNPSC itselfwere erroneous. The questions in the Preliminary Examination were ofobjective type. As against each question, three or four choices ofanswers were given. There were hollow circles against those fourchoices and a candidate had to darken one of those circlescorresponding to the answer, which according to him/her was the correctanswer. That answer book was assessed with the help of a computerisedprogramme.10. Some of the candidates who had participated in theirPreliminary Examination raised doubts about the correctness of theanswers. They, however, formed this opinion only after the declarationof the results of the Preliminary Examination on 25.4.2008 when theydiscussed the issue among themselves and on the basis of self-evaluation. That led some of the candidates, numbering 31, to fileWrit Petition No.12127 of 2008 etc. as a batch. They raised doubts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ either regarding the validity of the questions or the correctness ofthe key answers. That batch of writ petitions came up before a learnedsingle Judge of this Court (N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.) and on31.7.2008, the learned single Judge issued the following directions :-"18. In the light of the above findings and havingregard to the judgments cited supra, I am inclined to passthe following orders:(i) The petitioners herein are directed to submitrepresentation pointing out the number of questions where thequestions are not correctly asked, more number of answers arefound correct as per leading text books and whether keyanswer to the questions are correctly given on or before7.8.2008.(ii) On receiving the said representations therespondent/TNPSC is directed to place the disputedquestions/answers before the Expert Committee to beconstituted by it for verification as to whether thequestions pointed out are correct, if more than one answergiven in the choice are correct and whether the key answersgiven to any question pointed out by the petitioners arewrong. (iii) On verifying the same, the Expert Committeeis directed to award marks to such of those petitioners whoattempted the said questions and on that basis determine thefinal marks of the petitioners in the preliminaryexamination.(iv) Since the above said exercise will take sometime and in view of fixation of date for the main writtenexamination as 16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008, the respondent/ TNPSCis directed to permit the petitioners herein to write themain written examinations along with 1750 candidates, who arealready found eligible to write main written examination.(v) By following the above process, if thepetitioners are getting the required cut-off marks prescribedfor the respective category, their final written examinationpapers shall be valued. If the petitioners are not gettingthe required cut-off marks, their final written examinationpapers need not be valued.(vi) Since the preliminary examination results werepublished as early as on 25.4.2008, and the main writtenexamination is to be held on 16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008, thebenefit of this order is restricted to the writ petitionersherein, as no general directions could be issued at thisbelated stage.All The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. Nocosts. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. As can be seen from paragraph 18(iv) and (vi) of the abovedirections dated 31.7.2008, the Court restricted the permission towrite the Main Written Examination only to the petitioners (who were 31in number) along with 1750 candidates who were already found eligibleto write the Main Written Examination. The learned single Judge didnot grant any general direction as he was of the view that it could notbe given at a belated stage when the Main Written Examination was to beconducted only a few days thereafter, i.e. on 16/17.8.2008. 12. It appears that thereafter, some other candidates filed WritPetition Nos.18780, 18888 and 19121 of 2008 etc. as a batch. Theyagain questioned the validity of some of the questions and thecorrectness of the key answers. This batch of writ petitions came upbefore P. Jyothimani, J. The learned single Judge was of the view thatthe suspicion in the minds of the candidates that there had been somediscrepancies, was well founded. The learned Judge referred to some ofthe questions and the key answers corresponding to those questions andaccording to the learned Judge, some of them were wrong answers. Inthis view of the matter, the learned Judge felt that the 77 petitionerswho had filed the batch of writ petitions before him also deserved theparticipation in the Main Written Examination since they had receivedonly a few marks less than the cut-off marks received by some 1750candidates who were declared successful in the Preliminary Examination.The learned Judge was of the view that if these candidates were beingdenied participation only because of the errors on the part of theexamining body, at least those who will get marks more than the cut-offmarks after the report of the Expert Committee appointed under theorder of N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. should be allowed to write the MainWritten Examination.13. In the meanwhile, the cut-off marks of the various categoriesof candidates in respect of the Preliminary Examination were publishedby the TNPSC, which were as follows :CategoryMarkGeneral Turn (General)210.00General Turn (Women)195.00Backward Classes (General)201.00Backward Classes (Women)187.50Most Backward Classes/Denotified Communities(General)196.50 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CategoryMarkMost Backward Classes/Denotified Communities(Women)180.00Scheduled Caste (General)195.00Scheduled Caste (Women)178.50Scheduled Tribe (General)156.00Scheduled Tribe (Women)---As per the order of N.Paul Vasanthakumar, J. those who got marks morethan these cut-off marks subsequent to the report of the ExpertCommittee were to be permitted to write the Main Written Examination. 14. The learned single Judge (P. Jyothimani, J.), therefore,disposed of the writ petitions by his judgment dated 13th August, 2008containing the following directions:"17. For the reasons stated, the above writpetitions stand disposed of with the following directions :-(i) The respondent, Tamil Nadu Public ServiceCommission, shall permit the petitioners herein to writefinal examinations to be conducted on 16.08.2008 and17.08.2008 in various centres at Chennai by issuing HallTickets to them. As submitted by the learned counselappearing for the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, thepetitioners are entitled to collect their respective HallTickets from the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public ServiceCommission, Chennai, in its office on or before 5.00 p.m. on14.08.2008. It is made clear that allowing the petitionersto write the examinations does not mean that their rights toappear for final examination are recognised by this Court.(ii)The answer papers of final examinations to betaken by the petitioners as per the above said directionshall be kept separately in a sealed cover by the Tamil NaduPublic Service Commission without referring for valuation.(iii) All the petitioners before this Court arepermitted to make individual representation to therespondent, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, bringingout the specific instances of mistake ascertained by them inthe question papers or in the key answers, provided suchquestions are attended by the petitioners concerned. Theymust also disclose their names, addresses, register numbers,question numbers, question booklet series, the Writ Petition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Numbers, the genuine doubt about their key answers etc. inthe representation. Such representations shall be submittedby the petitioners to the Secretary, Tamil Nadu PublicService Commission, in its office on or before 5.00 p.m. on14.08.2008. As fairly submitted by the learned counsel forthe respondent Public Service Commission, on submission ofsuch representation by individual petitioner, the Tamil NaduPublic Service Commission shall acknowledge the receipt ofsuch objections by making proper endorsement. (iv) On receipt of the said representations, therespondent Service Commission shall place the entire issuebefore the Experts Committee to be constituted by it forverification by comparing the necessary papers of theconcerned petitioners and to arrive at a final decision aboutits correctness or otherwise. In the event of the Expertsappointed by the respondent Service Commission deciding thatthe questions attempted by the individual petitioner areeither wrong or some mistakes have crept in, the respondentService Commission shall grant necessary marks to theconcerned petitioners.(v) After completion of the above said exercise,the respondent Service Commission shall decide about thepetitioners entitlement or eligibility of the petitioners towrite the final written examination based on the cut off markissued by the Service Commission and thereafter, the ServiceCommission shall direct valuation of the final examinationpapers of those petitioners alone. With regard to thepetitioners, who are not able to get the required cut offmark, after the exercise made by the Service Commission asstated above, their final written examination papers need notbe valued and the said factum shall be published by theService Commission in its usual manner.(vi) It is made clear that the decision of theTamil Nadu Public Service Commission after referring to theExperts opinion shall be final, however subject to any legalremedy, which may be available to the petitioners. All otherrights of Public Service Commission as per the Notificationissued by them shall continue to be operative. It is madeclear that if the petitioners do not appear before therespondent Service Commission by the time stipulated forsubmitting their objections and receiving Hall Tickets, theyare not entitled for the benefits given in this order.Connected M.Ps. are closed. No costs."15. Now, it so transpired, as can be seen from the above narrationthat apart from the 31 candidates who had filed the earlier batch ofwrit petitions which were decided by N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J., some 77candidates had filed this second batch of writ petitions which had comeup before P. Jyothimani, J. Some other candidates had filed a writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition at Madurai Bench. It is accepted by the TNPSC that the numberof candidates who had approached the High Court totalled to 125. TheTNPSC gave an opportunity to all these 125 candidates to write the MainWritten Examination along with the other 1796 candidates who had passedthe Preliminary Examination. This figure of 1796 is the revised figureof successful candidates as per the TNPSC, as against the earlierfigure of 1750. 16. It is relevant to note that the Expert Committee examined some40 objections submitted to it and came to the conclusion that 21 ofthem were justified. According to the TNPSC, the accepted objectionswere only eight. It is material to note that in view of para 17 (iv) ofthe order of P. Jyothimani, J. the papers of the PreliminaryExamination in respect of these 125 candidates were re-examined in thelight of the answers stated to be correct by the Expert Committee.Then it was seen that only 25 out of these 125 were getting marks morethan the cut-off marks received by the 1796 candidates in thepreliminary examination. Hence, although the 125 candidates wereallowed to write the Main Written Examination, the papers of only these25 candidates were evaluated for the Main Written Examination as perpara 17(v) of the above order. Thus, they were brought on par with the1796 candidates who had passed the Preliminary Examination with theircut-off marks. On examination of their Main Written Examinationpapers, however, it was found that only two candidates could beselected for the Oral Interview, which is the third stage. (We are,however, informed that ultimately both these candidates did not passthe Oral Interview which was held later on). 17. After the result in the main examination, a number ofpetitions came to be filed, which was the third round of theirlitigation. V. Ramasubramaniam, J., who heard the matter, categorisedthem into three categories and his operative order on them in theimpugned judgment is as follows :-"Category No.1 :W.P. No.450 of 2009 and 7 other petitions filed by20 candidates (they came to the court for the first time).Irrespective of whether they challenged the main orpreliminary examination, they were dismissed by the commonjudgment dated 30.4.2009 on the ground of delay and laches.Category No.2 :These were W.P. No.29831 of 2008 and six otherpetitions by seven out of 25 above candidates who passed thepreliminary examination by reaching the cut-off marks. Theirpapers were evaluated for the main examination, but they https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ failed in the main examination. Their petitions weredismissed by the same common judgment.Category No.3 :These were W.P. No.30795 of 2008 and 11 otherpetitions by M.A. Ravivarma and others. They were candidatesout of the 100 (other than above 25 out of 125 candidates)who were allowed to write the main examination, but failed inthe preliminary examination even as per the yardstick revisedby the expert committee and hence, their papers for the mainexamination were not evaluated. The learned single Judgedirected the papers of three candidates (V. Balasubramanian,C. Sanghu and A. Arivukkannan) to be evaluated by applying afurther liberal yardstick. Except this relief, the otherpetitions were dismissed by the same judgment.(Incidentally, after this liberal evaluation for thepreliminary examination, their papers were evaluated for themain examination, but they failed in the main examination)." 18. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants and TNPSC :Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel and other counselappearing for the appellants submitted that once it was held that therewas an error in some of the answers, the entire examination ought to beheld as vitiated and should, therefore, be set aside. As against thissubmission, Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned senior counsel for the Commissionpointed out that the grievance with respect to the denial ofparticipation in the Main Written Examination was made by only 125candidates, which was on the basis of an allegedly wrong assessment ofsome answers. He pointed out that the examination was a massiveexercise. Some 85,913 candidates had appeared in this examination, outof which 1796 candidates obtained the necessary cut-off marks in thePreliminary Examination. Further in view of the orders passed by N.Paul Vasanthakumar, J. and P. Jyothimani, J. and in view of the reportof the Expert Committee received thereafter, 25 candidates out of these125 were treated to have obtained the cut-off marks and passed thePreliminary Examination. N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. and P. Jyothimani,J. had in terms restricted the relief to only these candidates. Thedirection of both these learned Judges restricting the relief were notchallenged in any way by any of the candidates. That apart, accordingto Mr.Gopalan, the restrictive direction was well justified, since therelief could be granted only to those who had approached the Court.This was clearly reflected in the order of N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.and also in the order of P. Jyothimani, J., which have been quotedabove. It was faintly suggested on behalf of the appellants that someof the 1796 candidates who had passed the Preliminary Examination weretreated as passed on the basis of wrong answers. Mr. Gopalan submittedthat at no point of time it had been earlier canvassed on behalf of any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the unsuccessful candidates that some of these 1796 candidates beexcluded for any such reason. Their endeavour has all throughout beento include themselves in the Main Written Examination. That has alreadybeen permitted and the 125 candidates were permitted additionally towrite the Main Written Examination though only 25 could be heldeligible for assessment in the main examination. Having accepted theorders passed by two learned Judges as above, it was not permissiblefor the appellants now to turn back and say for the first time thatwhether they are selected or not, these 1796 candidates should not betreated as having passed the Preliminary Examination, and that theresult of the Preliminary Examination itself be cancelled.19. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for theappellant in W.A.No.653 of 2009 submitted that the examination by thePublic Service Commission is expected to be of high order. It is forthis purpose that the recognition and protection had been given to theCommission under Article 320 of the Constitution of India. To emphasisthe importance of its work and also to point out as to how its work hassuffered over the years, he referred to the observations of the ApexCourt in paragraph 42 of the judgment rendered in State of Bihar vs.Upendra Narayan Singh and others reported in (2009) 5 SCC 65 to theeffect that the hopes and expectations of the framers of theConstitution in that behalf have been belied by what has actuallyhappened in the last four decades. It has been further observed thatthe Public Service Commissions which have been given the status ofconstitutional authorities and which are supposed to be totallyindependent and impartial while discharging their function in terms ofArticle 320 have become victims of spoils system.20. With a view to point out some of the serious failures in theexamination under consideration, he drew our attention to the exampleof one Ponnuerusan. He was a candidate bearing RegistrationNo.00407010. Strangely enough, in the mark sheet showing the marksobtained by him in the oral examination and in the written examination,he was shown as a female candidate. It was pointed out that for theMost Backward Class Community, to which he belongs, the cut off marksfor the female candidates were 180. Since he was considered as a femalecandidate, he was allowed for the interview as he scored 183 marks. Hewould not have been otherwise allowed for the interview since the marksrequired for the male candidates belonging to MBC Community were196.50. It is another matter that when this fact was brought to thenotice of the Public Service Commission, his name was removed from thelist of successful candidates, though he got the highest marks in theinterview. Mr.Vijay Narayan drew our attention to the publication in aTamil newspaper dated 01st October 2008, which shows that anothercandidate was suspended for receiving bribe while working as anemployee in the Registration Department. He also received the highestmarks in the oral examination. The employees are supposed to file 'No https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Objection Certificates' given by their employer, under Clause 15(g) ofthe Advertisement, in the prescribed form. The form is supposed tostate that the employer has no objection to the candidate's applicationfor being considered for the post. It is submitted that this person hasnot submitted the No Objection Certificate at all. As far as thissubmission is concerned, Mr.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearingfor the Public Service Commission pointed out that if the personconcerned has suppressed this fact of his employment, there was nosource for the Public Service Commission to know as to whether he hascommitted any such misconduct. In any case, since this particularaspect was brought to the notice of the Commission, the Commission willverify as to whether the statement attributed to him is correct. Mr.Gopalan further submitted that both these persons were not maderespondents in these petitions and therefore, we do not have theopportunity to get their explanation on whatever that has been alleged.21. In this behalf, Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned senior counselcriticized the learned single Judge, whose judgment is under challenge.The learned Single Judge has discussed the case of Ponnuerusan inparagraph 32 of the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge hasheld that at the highest, it is a mistake on the part of the PublicService Commission and merely on that basis, it is not possible tovitiate the entire selection process. Mr. Vijay Narayan submitted thatthe order should have been to the contrary. He then submitted that thefinal examination was held on 16th and 17th August 2008. The ExpertCommittee was formed on 25th August 2008, which gave its report on 24thSeptember 2008 and valuation of the papers of some 1700 candidates wasdone during 6th November and 20th November 2008. As far as the 125candidates, who were allowed to give the final examination under theorders of the Court, are concerned, their papers were also evaluated inview of the order passed by the Court. Mr.Vijay Narayan, however,contends that, according to his instructions, they have been evaluatedby some different examiners and that they should have been examined bythose who examined the other 1700 papers. As far as this submission isconcerned, Mr.Gopalan drew our attention to paragraph 19(g) of thecounter filed before the learned Single Judge, on behalf of the PublicService Commission, wherein this allegation viz., that for these 25candidates, a separate evaluation was done, has been emphaticallydenied. It is stated in that counter that the question papers of thecandidates were not identifiable, since dummy numbers were given to allthe papers before they were sent for valuation and so the papers ofthese 25 candidates were also evaluated like the rest of thecandidates. 22. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellantin W.A.No.652 of 2009 adopted the argument of Mr.Vijay Narayan. Hemainly submitted that if according to the Expert Committee, 21 out of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 200 questions were being wrongly assessed, it was a serious matter andthe Court should not confine the relief only to permitting the 125candidates who came to the Court to appear for the final examination.In view of the magnitude of the problem, he submitted that the resultof the entire examination should be scrapped. 23. Mr. K.M. Vijayan, learned senior counsel appeared for theappellant in W.A. No.653 of 2009 arising out of W.P. No.450 of 2009filed by one Mr. Chandrasekaran and others. These petitioners were notamongst those who had filed the petitions earlier, leading to theorders passed by N. Paul Vasanthakumar and P. Jyothimani, J.J. Theyhad filed a petition for the first time before V. Ramasubramanian, J.to point out the irregularities in the examination conducted by theTNPSC. He also appeared for the Advocate - Petitioner who has filed afresh petition in public interest which was placed along with theseappeals. This petitioner has sought a C.B.I. enquiry against the TNPSCand the particular Coaching Centre. He has also sought thecancellation of the entire examination. 24. The submissions of Mr. Vijayan were threefold. His firstsubmission was that when the grievance was the same, the relief shouldbe extended to all, i.e., if 21 questions were assessed on the basis ofwrong answers and were subsequently corrected, it means that out of 200marks, 31.5 marks went one way or the other in a wrong manner. According to him 17,062 candidates, who are said to have passed thepreliminary examination, are supposed to have passed the examination onthe basis of wrong answers. If it is so, the grievance is a grievancein rem and therefore, the entire examination should be set aside. Herelied upon paragraph 24(7) of the judgment of the Apex Court in thecase of M.P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Nanuram Yadav reported in(2007) 8 S.C.C. 264 to submit that if the mischief is widespread andall pervasive, the relief should be to set aside the examination. Itis, however, material to note that in the matter before the Apex Court,out of 60 appointments, 58 appointments, i.e., practically all theappointments, were disputed. That is certainly not the case in thepresent matter. 25. The second submission of Mr. Vijayan is that the learnedsingle Judge has failed to do complete justice. He submitted that whenthe learned single Judge found that a coaching centre had perhapsplayed a dubious role in the selection of the candidates, the learnedsingle Judge ought to have directed an enquiry against the coachingcentre. A separate writ petition has been filed by an Advocate in thatbehalf, being W.P. No.11486 of 2009 and which is placed before thisCourt along with this group of appeals and Mr. Vijayan has appeared forthe petitioner therein. He prayed that a C.B.I. enquiry be conductedagainst the coaching centre and against the TNPSC in view of theobservations of the learned single Judge made in paragraphs 30 and 31of his impugned judgment. The third submission of Mr. Vijayan was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ concerning the two cases of Mr. Ponnuerusan and Rajendran, whoaccording to him, were wrongly allowed to write the examination. Thegrievance in that behalf has already been discussed.26. Mr. V.R. Kamalanathan appeared for the appellant Mr. RaviVarma in W.A. No.649 of 2009. It was his submission that thisappellant ought to have been awarded three extra marks and the markswhich have been deducted from his tally should not have been deducted,in which event, he would have crossed the cut-off marks for thepreliminary examination. 27. As far as Mr. Ravivarma's case is concerned, Mr. V.T. Gopalan,learned senior counsel appearing for the TNPSC pointed out that Mr.Ravi Varma has been allowed to write the main examination in view ofthe order passed by the learned single Judge and which is impugned inthis group of appeals. It is another matter that Mr. Ravi Varma didnot pass the main examination and therefore, he urged that thesubmission was untenable.28. Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appeared for theappellant in W.A. No.650 of 2009 arising out of W.P. No.989 of 2009.This appellant was allowed to write the main examination, but he didnot pass it. The submission of the learned senior counsel is that thepassing of a candidate in the main examination depends upon the rank atwhich he or she stands. Undoubtedly, this appellant is not amongst the172 candidates ranked at the top. Mr. Sundaresan submits that amongstthese 172 selected candidates, there are some who must have got thebenefit of wrong assessment because they are from the group of 1,796candidates. Their answer books are corrected in such a way that theyincluded the 21 questions and answers which were subsequently found tobe wrong by an Expert Committee. It is thus possible that some of themhave got the benefit of wrong answers and therefore, they were allowedto write the main examination. If these wrong answers are removed, maybe, that they would not have passed the preliminary examination and inwhich case, they would not have been the contenders in the mainexamination. Mr. Sundaresan therefore submits that if such candidateswere to be eliminated, may be, this appellant would have found a placeamong the top 172. 29. In this connection, Mr.Gopalan impressed upon us that this hasbeen a huge exercise. Some 172 posts are to be filled. The posts havebeen lying vacant from 2004. The Preliminary Examination was held inthe year 2007 and in view of the writ petitions and the stay granted inthese writ appeals, though 172 candidates have been selected, thoseposts are not being filled up, causing a serious prejudice to theadministration. It is material to note that as far as the 125candidates who contested these matters all throughout are concerned,their papers for the Preliminary Examination have been examined on thebasis of the yardstick laid down by the Expert Committee. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submitted on their behalf that there were errors were in some 21questions, which is about 10% of the questions. As against that, onbehalf of the TNPSC, it was submitted at one stage that at the highest,the errors were only in eight questions, which means that the errorswere in just about 4% of the questions. The issue before the Court,therefore, is as to which approach to be adopted, whether to set asidethe results of the entire Preliminary Examination on the basis of theyardstick laid down by the Expert Committee or to hold that the errorsin the case of the candidates who raised the issue have been attendedand permit the result of the examination conducted by the TNPSC to beacted upon.30. The 125 candidates whose papers were examined on the basis ofthe expert committee answers have been permitted to participate in theMain Written Examination. The marks in the Preliminary Examination areno longer relevant when it comes to calling a candidate for an oralinterview as provided in Clause 10 of the notification containing theprocedure of selection. The candidate has to pass in the Main WrittenExamination to qualify for the interview. The 125 candidates werepermitted to write the Main Written Examination. It is another matterthat out of them only 25 obtained the cut-off marks in the preliminaryexamination for becoming eligible for assessing their papers in themain examination. Earlier, 1796 candidates had been held as havingobtained the cut-off marks. It is possible that a few of them couldnot have achieved the cut-off marks if the yardstick with respect tothe 21 corrected answers (or 8 corrected answers as per the TNPSC) wasto be applied to them. But, having cleared the PreliminaryExamination, these 1796 candidates had to write the Main WrittenExamination and thereafter, appear for the Oral Interview, and fromamongst them, only 172 candidates have been selected. It is stated thatin this process, the theoretical possibility of the candidates passingthe Main Written Examination and then getting selected in the OralInterview (though they may not have obtained cut-off marks in thepreliminary exam) gets further eliminated. At the most, it couldperhaps be said that some of these 1796 candidates may not have beeneligible to write the Main Written Examination on the yardstick of theexpert committee, but were allowed to write that examination. Thefact, however, remains that thereafter they have passed the MainWritten Examination, which is a still more stringent examination thanthe Preliminary Examination, and then the oral interview. In thisscenario, once the aggrieved 125 candidates were permitted to give themain examination, it cannot lie in their mouth now to say for the firsttime after three rounds of petitions that the 1796 candidates or atleast some of them should not have been permitted to write the MainWritten Examination. The grievance of the 125 candidates having beenredressed, nothing needs to be ordered for them thereafter.31. Mr.V.T. Gopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for theTNPSC submitted that the relief to be granted ought to be restricted to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ those who have been vigilant in canvassing this litigation. Thisshould be so considering the magnitude of the exercise. He pointed outthat some 1,15,492 candidates applied for participating in theselection process in pursuance to the notification issued on 1.8.2007.The applications of 85,913 candidates were found to be in order andthey were issued with the hall tickets for appearing in the preliminaryexamination which was held on 23.12.2007. The result of the preliminaryexamination was declared on 25.4.2008. As per the selection procedure,the number of candidates who would qualify for the main examination wasfixed at ten times the number of posts which were advertised to befilled up. The posts to be filled up are 172 and therefore, the numberof candidates who would qualify for the main examination would be1,720. It, however, so happened that a good number of candidates gotequal number of marks and therefore, the number actually went upto1,796. 32. In the summer vacation of May 2008, writ petitions were filedby some of the candidates who failed in the preliminary examination.The first judgment was rendered by N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. on31.7.2008. The second one was rendered by P. Jyothimani on 13.8.2008.Some orders were passed at the Madurai Bench also, thus resulting in adirection to allow 125 candidates to write the main examination. Themain examination was conducted on 16th and 17th August, 2009, in whichthese 1,796 plus the 125 candidates were allowed to appear. As per theorders of the Court, only 25 out of the 125 candidates obtained thecut-off marks, equivalent to 1,796 candidates. Therefore, although 125candidates were allowed to appear in the main examination, only thepapers of 25 of them were evaluated for the main examination since theyhad obtained the necessary cut-off marks.33. Mr. Gopalan pointed out that the number of candidates who wereto be called for interview were to be twice the number of posts to befilled up. Again, in view of some of the candidates getting equalnumber of marks, for 172 posts, 347 candidates were called for the oralinterview. Out of the above 25 candidates who got the qualifying marksin the preliminary examination on the basis of the report of the ExpertCommittee, only two could reach this group of 347. It is anothermatter that unfortunately, they also failed in the oral interview. 34. The result of the main examination was challenged only by sixout of these 25 candidates who filed the writ petition before V.Ramasubramanian, J. Out of the 100 other candidates who were allowedto write the main examination, only 11 filed the writ petition beforeV. Ramasubramanian, J. Thus, out of these 125 candidates, only 17candidates came to the Court once again.35. As far as the 1,796 candidates are concerned, only 20 of themfiled another writ petition which came up before V. Ramasubramanian, J. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thus, only 37 candidates were before V. Ramasubramanian, J., leading tohis impugned judgment.36. The learned senior counsel appearing for the TNPSC furtherpointed out that from amongst these 37 candidates also, only thefollowing persons, viz.,(i) 3 candidates out of the group of 25;(ii) 5 candidates out of the group of 100, (i.e., only 8 out of the 125;) and(iii)13 out of the 20, who are out of the 1,796have filed the present appeals. Thus, in all, only 21 candidates havefiled these appeals.37. The submission of Mr. Gopalan is that at the highest only 21candidates should be considered for the relief, if at all, and notothers, and that the alleged wrong to them had already been attended.He referred to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CumbumRoadways (P) Ltd. vs. Somu Transport (P) Ltd. reported in A.I.R. 1966S.C. 1366, which was a matter concerning the permits issued under theMotor Vehicles Act, and wherein the Apex Court observed that the HighCourt has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the AppellateTribunal either in favour of or against the parties which have not comebefore it. He also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in thecase of Tilokchand vs. H.B. Munshi reported in (1969) 1 S.C.C. 110,where the Court observed that Courts help those who are vigilant andnot in slumber over their rights. He referred to another judgment ofthe Apex Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam vs. Jaswant Singh reportedin (2006) 11 S.C.C. 464 to the effect that when a person is notvigilant of his right and acquiesces with a situation, relief may bedenied to him.(B)Submissions by impleading successful candidates: 38. Ms. R. Vaigai, learned counsel appeared for some of theselected candidates who are the respondents in these writ petitions.She relied upon a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case ofSadananda Halo vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh reported in (2008) 4 S.C.C. 619.That was a case where the recruitment to Armed Constables in differentdistricts of Assam was under consideration, and the Guwahati High Courthad interfered into those selections on the alleged ground of largenumber of candidates not being objectively and properly tested. TheApex Court, however, held that a mere expression to that effect withoutany further material cannot by itself render the whole selectionprocess illegal. The judgment of the Supreme Court is relied upon forwhat is stated in paragraph 58 of the judgment that in suchwrit petitions, a roving enquiry on the factual aspects is notpermissible. The Apex Court observed as follows :- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "The High Court not only engaged itself into a non-permitted fact finding exercise, but also went on to rely onthe findings of the Amicus Curiae, or as the case may be, thescrutiny team, which in our opinion, was inappropriate.While testing the fairness of the selection process whereinthousands of candidates were involved, the High Court shouldhave been slow in relying upon such microscopic findings. Itwas not for the High Court to place itself into a position offact finding commission, that too more particularly at theinstance of these petitioners who were candidates. The HighCourt should, therefore, have restricted itself to thepleadings in the writ petition and the say of therespondents. Unfortunately, the High Court took it uponitself the task of substituting itself for the selectioncommittee and also in the process, assumed the role of anappellate tribunal which was, in our opinion, not proper.Thus, the High Court converted this writ petition into apublic interest litigation without any justification."The Apex Court held in that matter that no deviation from the rules orinherent defect in the selection process, which would render the wholeselection illegal, had either been alleged or proved. 39. Applying the aforesaid yardstick, Ms.Vaigai submitted thatthere was no need for the three learned Judges to go for a microscopicexamination. Where fairness of a selection process was underconsideration, and wherein thousands of candidates were involved, theobjective should be to see to it that there should be no unfairness andno prejudice should be caused to the candidates. In fact, under theimpugned judgment, V.Ramasubramanian, J has been more considerate forthe unsuccessful candidates. They have got the best out of bothworlds. The learned Judge has given marks to three candidates byapplying both the yardsticks, and yet they could not obtain the minimumcut-off marks in the preliminary examination. 40. Learned counsel further submitted that the postings have beenlying vacant for the lost about 5 years since 2004. The examination washeld in December, 2007 and the selected candidates were waiting fortheir postings for the last over an year and nine months, and werestruck up, because of the stay granted in these proceedings. Their agewas getting advanced for other employments due to passage of time. Thesuccessful candidates had put in their good effort, appeared for theexamination, and passed the same, and were now waiting for theirappointments. They had a legitimate expectation in getting theirpostings, which was frustrated by this 4th round of litigation. 41. Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some ofthe impleaded successful candidates submitted that the principles whichwould apply to any normal litigation will have to be applied to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ present case also. The unsuccessful candidates cannot be permitted toraise new submissions by filing fresh original petitions, and where theunsuccessful candidates have not challenged the validity of the mainexamination at the earlier state, they cannot be permitted to raisetheir submission on principles analogues to the one under Order - IIRule - 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 42. Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel also appearingfor some of the impleaded successful candidates submitted that theCourt has to restrict itself to considering the entitlement of onlythose who felt aggrieved and were actually aggrieved by the impugnedaction. A petition by an advocate in the nature of PIL like the onefiled by one K.Sudalai Muthu was certainly not called for. This was amatter concerning selection by the public service commission, and beinga kind of service matter, a PIL by an advocate in a service matter wascertainly not expected to be entertained. He relied upon the judgmentof the Apex Court in the case of Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of U.P. reportedin 2001(4) SCC 734. 43. Mr.N.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel also appearing forsome of the impleaded successful candidates submitted that in thismatter we are concerned with holding of an examination for publicservice, which was a huge exercise. It had to be seen that theexamination was conducted fairly and properly, and that there should beno prejudice to any of the candidates in the manner of holding of theexamination. This was at the highest a legal right, which was involvedin this case for the petitioner. This was not a case of breach of anyfundamental right, and therefore, all restrictive concepts, such asthat of estoppel, acquiescence, and laches, which apply to a legalright will apply to the right of the candidates to have a fair play. Hesubmitted that it was nobody’s case that there was any malice involvedin the present case, either on facts or in law. 44. The fact that the petitions which were filed earlier wereconcerned with canceling preliminary examination only was emphasized bythe learned counsel appearing for the successful candidates. Thus,Mr.R.Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment ofthe Apex Court reported in AIR 2004 SC 4116 (Pramod Kumar SrivastavaVs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna) to submit that inthe absence of rules the learned single Judge should not have directedrevaluation by the Expert Committee. He pointed out that, in any case,the prayers in these petitions were to permit the candidates to writethe main examination on the ground that they had fared well in thepreliminary examination, but certain questions were wrong and althoughthey had written correct answers, the answers were marked as incorrect.According to them, if the valuation was done correctly, they would beeligible to write the main examination. These unsuccessful candidatesaccepted the appointment of the Expert Committee to go into the details https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the questions and answers, but now, they are trying to challenge themain examination, which cannot be permitted. 45. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for some of theimpleading successful candidates emphasized the principle ofproportionality in granting the relief and relied upon the judgement ofthe Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajesh.P.U. reportedin 2003 (7) SCC 285 to submit that in the absence of wide spreadinfirmities, there cannot be en-bloc cancellation of the examination,which will affect innocent untainted candidates.46. Mr. Arvind Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for some ofthe interveners submitted that – (i) With regard to the second category of candidates, under theimpugned judgment, initially, after the order of P. Jyothimani, J., 125persons were allowed to write the examination and 25 qualified for themain examination, and ultimately 2 were selected for oral interview.He referred to paragraphs 22, 23 and 38 of the order of the learnedsingle Judge. According to him, from paragraphs 22 to 37, there is anelaborate discussion as to why the second category of candidates shouldnot be considered.(ii) As far as the third category, under the impugned judgment, isconcerned, he submitted that they have already got the relief. As aresult of the Expert Committee, some people who had got 100 marks get97 marks. The learned single Judge did not reduce the marks of thosewho had filed the writ petitions. Mr.Datar, relied on paragraph 39 ofthe order of P.Jyothimani,J. He also referred to sub-paragraph (7) ofparagraph 50. He submitted that those people who were in the thirdcategory have been granted relief and the necessary direction has beengiven. He submitted that with regard to the third category, thelearned single Judge has granted whatever relief that was possible tobe given to them. All the three categories have been dealt with by thelearned single Judge and each appellant in that category mustdemonstrate that any finding is perverse in respect of his category.47. What is the relief that can be granted in these circumstances?Mr.Datar, pointed out that among all the prayers, only in Writ PetitionNo.11731 of 2008 comprising of three petitioners, there was the prayerfor revaluation of the preliminary examination held on 23.12.2007.Everybody else has asked for some limited relief. 48. In these circumstances, learned senior counsel prayed that thewrit appeals be dismissed on two grounds, apart from the submissions onthe ground of laches etc. The first ground is regarding the aspect ofpolicy choice and the second ground is with regard to proportionality,which is an important factor in administrative law. Both the learnedsingle Judges had the option to set aside the whole examination, butthey did not choose to do so. Once the learned single Judge has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ exercised a policy choice in the impugned judgment, which is an optionopen to him, and has decided to mould the relief sought for in the writpetitions, the appellate court ought not grant a larger relief unlessthere are extraordinary reasons compelling it to do so. In the case ofan examination which involves 85913 candidates, the courts would setaside the whole examination only if there is an extraordinary, strongfactual foundation at the earliest point of time. Apart from W.P.No.11731 of 2008, in none of the writ petitions is there the prayer –leave alone the factual foundation – for setting aside the preliminaryexamination. Even the petitioners in W.P. No.11731 of 2008 are guiltyof laches, and these are the persons who have passed the examination.So, in effect, the only person who has challenged the examination isthe one who has passed it. According to the learned senior counsel,after a gap of two years, the entire main examination should not be setaside and therefore, it is prayed that the writ appeals be dismissed. 49. According to the learned senior counsel, the learned Judge hasconsidered the possibility of setting aside the whole examination, buthe has opted not to do so and has decided to mould the relief soughtfor. This discretion has been exercised by the learned single Judge onthe basis of an elaborate discussion, which merits acceptance.According to the learned senior counsel, the order of the learnedsingle Judge is a carefully reasoned order which deserves acceptance. 50. As far as proportionality is concerned, it is stated that ifthe entire examination is set aside, the whole clock will be turnedback by two years and successful candidates who have waited for allthese long years to write the examination will be driven back to squareone for no fault of theirs. According to the learned senior counsel,such successful candidates should not be made to become victims of thisexercise.(C) Impleading Petitions with a prayer in the nature of Cross Appeal:51. As the above narration denotes the unsuccessful candidates inthe TNPSC examination went on filing petitions after petitions, andprior to these matters coming to this Division Bench, the cause ofsuccessful candidates was essentially defended by the Public ServiceCommission. The submission of the unsuccessful candidates was thatthere were certain errors in the questions that had been set up for theexamination and that some of the answers were also erroneous andtherefore, they had suffered in the preliminary examination. Acceptingtheir submission, an Expert Committee was directed to be appointed inthe first round of litigation under the judgment of N.PaulVasanthakumar, J. The number of candidates who were granted the benefitof the opinion of the Expert Committee got increased in the secondround of litigation under the judgment of P.Jyothimani, J, andultimately the number went up to 125 and odd. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

52. After the above two rounds of litigations, the third round oflitigation went on to V.Ramasubramanian, J, whose judgment is underchallenge once again by the unsuccessful candidates. At this stage, forthe first time, a large number of successful candidates have impleadedthemselves and we have noted the submission canvassed on their behalf. 53. The fact, however, remain that there was no formal notice tothem in any of the earlier proceedings. It was their selection, whichwas at stake, and they had not been afforded any opportunity to placetheir submission in any of the earlier three rounds of litigations. Itwas, therefore, that when these appeals came up for hearing before thisBench, that it was deemed necessary that a notice be issued to thesuccessful candidates also, so that they may make their representationconcerning the disputed examination. It was from this point of viewthat a public notice in the nature of a notice under Order 1 Rule 8 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure was directed to be issued on 5th August,2009 and it was published in the editions of English Daily The Hinduand Tamil Daily Thinakaran at Chennai, Coimbatore and Madurai.Consequent to the publication of this notice, a number of successfulcandidates appeared to get impleaded themselves to this proceeding. Butsome of the candidates i.e., N.Indumathi and others moved a petition inthe nature of Cross Appeal being M.P.No.11 of 2009 in W.A.No.652 of2009. Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned senior counsel, appeared for theseapplicants. 54. The submission of Mr.A.L.Somayaji was that the entire basis ofappointing an Expert Committee was on the assumption that the originalkey answers were wrong. He filed detailed documents and authoritativematerials on record to point out that in fact the original key answerswere not wrong and it was erroneous on the part of the Public ServiceCommission to have considered the appointment of an Expert Committee.In any case, it is submitted that since the benefit of the opinion ofthe Expert Committee has been given to the successful candidates, therewas no occasion for the unsuccessful candidates to make any grievance. 55. Mr.Somayaji, submitted that it was permissible for this Courtto exercise the powers under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of CivilProcedure and set right the finding, which is erroneous, though,otherwise, the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is infavour of the successful candidates. He submitted that, as respondents,the successful candidates may not have appealed from particular part ofthe judgment, but they do not support the judgment and the finding thatsome of the original answers were wrong. To substantiate his legalposition, he relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case ofBalbir Kaur v.U.P.Secondary Education Services Selection Board reportedin 2008 (12) SCC 1 (paras. 29 & 30); Jagdish Kumar vs. State of H.P.reported in 2005 (13) SCC 606. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

56. Copious material was placed on behalf of the successfulcandidates as well as on behalf of the unsuccessful candidates to putforth as to how the answers to the 8 disputed questions were eithercorrect or wrong. It was also pointed out that some of the questionsthemselves were confusing, their answers were erroneous and there was avariation in the correct answers in the Tamil and English versions. Itwas also brought to our notice that the syllabus for the examinationwas published, but there were no particular specified books. UnderInstruction No.28, it was stated that the best and the correct answersare to be given. Now what has happened is that the unsuccessfulcandidates relied upon the books of some experts, whereas thesuccessful candidates relied upon the books of other experts and alsothe standard text books prescribed by NCERT to canvass, as statedabove, that either the original key answers were wrong or otherwisecorrect. 57. The TNPSC fairly accepted that 8 questions were confusing innature and they are Questions Nos. 40, 45, 68, 82, 102, 127, 130 and173. Out of these 8 questions, Question No.45 is the only one onScience, whereas the rest were on humanities. Thus, for example,Question No.130, was as follows: -“ The Pallava rulers believed inA) JainismB) BuddhismC)HinduismD) Shaivism”The Public Service Commission in its key answers gave Jainism i.e., (A)as the correct answer, whereas we are pointed out on authority that thePallava Kings were earlier Jains and later on their Queen converted toShaivism. It is, therefore, difficult to say that a particular answeris correct and the other one is wrong. As stated above, out of these 8questions, only Question No.45 is the one, which deals with Science,and which is to the following effect: -“45. The plant which possesses ‘anticancerous activity isA) Seetha B) PolyalthiaC) Teak D) Murungai”The Service Commission in its key answers gave A as the correct answer,whereas according to the Expert Committee either A or B can be thecorrect answer.58. Mr.Somayaji therefore submits that assuming that there wereerrors in the eight answers, seven answers were on humanities on whichperhaps there were two different answers, and the unsuccessfulcandidates have been given the benefit of the answers given by theExpert Committee, whereas the successful candidates have marked theanswers on the basis of the key answers. According to Mr.Somayaji, noserious prejudice has been caused in this process. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Conclusions:-59. We have noted the submissions of the unsuccessful candidatesas well as the successful candidates and of the Public ServiceCommission in extenso. There is a good merit in the submission of thelearned counsel on behalf of the unsuccessful candidates that theexamination to be conducted by the Public Service Commission has to beof a high order and above any controversy. A democratic system can beadministered well only if the civil servants are selected on the basisof merit by open competition and that is why, a specific provision hasbeen made in the Constitution under Article 320 to provide for theexamination to be held by the Union and the Public Service Commission.It has been emphasised on behalf of the learned counsel for theunsuccessful candidates that if there are objective questions set upfor the preliminary examination, obviously the answers sought should bevery clear and there should no ambiguity about them. If there are fouroptions to a particular question and if only one of them is the correctone, obviously the one assigned as the correct answer in the keyanswers has to be the correct answer. There cannot be two answers toone question. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that a correct answermust get assessed as the correct answer. There also cannot be anydispute that the yardstick to be applied to all the candidates has gotto be a uniform one. One candidate cannot be told that for him aparticular answer to a question is the correct answer, whereas foranother candidate another answer is the correct answer. 60. Having stated this, we have to look into the problem which hascome up in this particular examination and as to how it has beenattended. Now the Rules require the candidates to raise theirobjections within three days of the examination and none of thecandidates raised their objections within that period. The successfulcandidates, in order to substantiate their case, therefore, relied upona judgment of the Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman,Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna (supra) to submit that in viewof failure to comply with the required rule, the learned single Judgesshould not have directed revaluation by the Expert Committee. In anycase, as has been submitted by Mr.Somayaji, learned senior counselappearing in pursuance to the public notice for the successfulcandidates that the least the learned single Judges should have donewas to have issued a notice to the successful candidates beforearriving at a conclusion that the key answers were wrong. He pointedout that in fact the questions were such, particularly those from thehumanities, which probably had two correct answers. As we have notedearlier, there was controversy about some 21 questions and out of them,the Public Service Commission accepted that there are doubts on theveracity of the correctness of the answers to eight questions. Sevenout of them were on humanities, and what the Public Service Commission https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has done is to give marks to the unsuccessful candidates for theanswers that they had given as per the report of the Expert Committee.As far as the successful candidates are concerned, they were givenmarks for the answers that they have given, which were corresponding tothe key answers. As has been, and has been accepted by the PublicService Commission both the group of answers are probable answers andcould be assessed as the correct answers. In this state of affairs,there was no prejudice to any of the unsuccessful candidates in themarks that they were given for those questions. As noted earlier, onlyone question i.e., Question No.45 was the one on Science where as perthe key answer, the correct answer was A, whereas, according to theExpert Committee, both A or B could be the correct answer. In any case,those unsuccessful candidates, who marked either A or B as the correctanswer for Question No.45 have been given the marks as the correctanswer. It could be said that the question being one on Science perhapseither the key answer is correct or the expert committee answer iscorrect. But since both the group of candidates are given 1.5 marks forthat answer the element of prejudice gets eliminated. 61. In this connection, we may profitably refer to the judgment ofthe Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Sharma v. State of J&K reported in2008 4 SCC 273. That was a case concerning the preliminary examinationconducted by J&K Public Service Commission. There also were somequestions which were claimed to be defective. The Public ServiceCommission decided to award permissible maximum marks to the disputedanswers. The said approach of the J&K Public Service Commission wasupheld by the High Court and the High Court declined to set aside thepreliminary examination in the larger interest of the administration aswell as in the interest of the candidates. The Apex Court held theapproach to be the correct one and held that a general action wasrequired to be taken to ensure that no candidates are suffered whenthere was no fault on his or her part. Strangely enough it wassubmitted by the unsuccessful candidates that conferring benefit tothem in this particular manner was erroneous, which submission was,naturally, turned down.62. In the facts of the present case, as has been noted above,once the unsuccessful candidates are given marks for the answers thatthey had given, it cannot lie in their mouth to say that the marksgiven to the successful candidates should be reduced. This is because,as seen by us, the disputed questions were on humanities where probablyboth answers were the correct answers. The only question, which was onScience, can be said to be the one where perhaps only one answer wasthe correct answer, but the Expert Committee opined that either A or Bwas the correct answer. Therefore, in our view, no prejudice is causedin giving marks for that answer either to the successful candidates orto the unsuccessful candidates. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

63. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for thesuccessful candidates, at the highest what is involved in the matter isthe legal right to have a fair examination. A candidate is expected toraise all his pleas when he comes to the Court. The unsuccessfulcandidates had three rounds of litigation prior to coming before thisDivision Bench. The grievances raised by them have already beenattended to in the manner in which the Public Service Commission hasdealt with the disputed questions by giving marks to both groups ofcandidates. Hardly any one of them had any further grievance to canvassat this appeal stage or by filing original petitions. In any case,looked at from the manner in which we have considered the issue, thereis no longer any case for prejudice to the unsuccessful candidates. 64. Two stray cases of one Ponnuerusan, though a male candidate,who was considered as a female candidate, and one suspended employeeparticipating in the examination, as disclosed in a newspaper on01.10.2008 were emphasized by the learned counsel for the unsuccessfulcandidates. Mr.Gopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the PublicService Commission, has assured that the Commission will look into thesubmission and take necessary corrective measure, if not already taken.65. The preliminary examination is essentially a short listingexamination. The right of the candidate to appear for the mainexamination depends upon his succeeding in the preliminary examination.The unsuccessful candidates who raised grievance were allowed to writethe main examination. There answers were corrected on the basis of aliberal yardstick, as accepted by the Expert Committee. The main papersof only those who obtained the cut-off marks were evaluated. In view ofgrant of marks to both groups of candidates for the disputed questionsin the preliminary examination, the rigor of prejudice has been takenoff and therefore, there is no occasion to say that there has been anyunfair or impartial treatment to any of the candidates. 66. Having noted, as stated above, in our view, much of theproblems would have been avoided had notice been issued to thesuccessful candidates at the level when the matter was heard before thelearned single Judges earlier. The unsuccessful candidates have gone onattempting to make new and new submissions, which were not taken at theearliest opportunity. One cannot be permitted to raise such new pointsas and when one thinks fit and proper. As held by the Apex Court in thecase of Sadananda Halo v. Montaz Ali Sheikh (supra), a microscopicapproach in such huge exercise is not accepted and one has to have asense of proportionality, particularly when it is seen that at the endof this exercise no prejudice has been caused to the unsuccessfulcandidates in any manner whatsoever. As stated earlier by us, had thelearned single Judge issued notice to the successful candidates much ofthe trouble would have been avoided and therefore, there is much forcein the submission of Mr.A.L.Somayaji that the findings by the learnedsingle Judges in their judgments with respect to errors in the key https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ answers and appointment of the expert committee would not have beencalled for. In any case, however, we note that the steps taken by thelearned Judges were with a desire to see to it that if at all there wasany error that error should be removed since the candidates must havefull confidence in the fairness of the examination. As stated earlier,in any case, in the facts of the case, there is no reason to interferewith the results of the examination, since no prejudice has beencaused. 67. For the reasons stated above, all the appeals filed by theunsuccessful candidates are dismissed. The writ petitions filed by themand the P.I.L. by an advocate are also dismissed. The results of theexamination held by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission shallstand confirmed and the Service Commission and the State Governmentwill be at liberty to proceed with the issuance of the posting orders. (E) Writ Appeal with a prayer to expunge the adverse findings:-68. There is an allegation that a coaching centre in Chennai hasplayed a role in passing of almost 48 candidates out of 172 candidates.The name of the centre is ''Saidai Sa. Duraisamy's Manidha Naeyam IAS &IPS Free Coaching Centre''. A question is raised as to how out of the172 selected candidates, 48 candidates are from this Centre. Thelearned Single Judge has, in the impugned order, directed the PublicService Commission to look into this allegation, since in his view,there appeared some substance therein. This coaching centre has fileda cross appeal to expunge the adverse findings rendered against it. Mr.R. Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the Centrepointed out that the Centre was not made a party to the petition and itdid not have any opportunity to make submissions before the learnedSingle Judge. It has, therefore, filed a miscellaneous petition seekingpermission to file an appeal challenging those findings. The learnedsenior counsel appearing for the Centre specifically denied that 48persons were selected from their Centre. He pointed out that only fourof their candidates have been selected in this examination, and reliedon the records in that behalf. 69. Mr.Vijay Narayan appearing for the unsuccessful candidates hadsubmitted that in this year's examination, the pattern of the questionpaper was changed and this was known only to the authorities of theCentres. He drew our attention to the question papers set in theprevious years and some standard question paper which was prepared bythe Centre for the preparation of its own students. It was pointed outthat as per the old pattern, in the main examination, answers were tobe written in 2700 words in all. In the new pattern, the number ofwords were increased to 5200 words. He referred to the model questionpaper, which was circulated to the candidates from the Centre. Bycalculating the questions and the marks and the words mentioned againstthe questions, he submitted that the calculation would come to 5200words. It was alleged that this new pattern was known only to this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ coaching centre. As far as this aspect is concerned, the counsel forthe selected candidates led by Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned SeniorCounsel, pointed out that the unsuccessful candidates have not placedbefore the Court what kind of papers were circulated to the students bysuch other coaching classes. Merely by making some calculations on thebasis of the questions and the number of words within which the replywas to be given, an inference cannot be drawn that the management ofthis particular coaching class knew as to what was the new pattern ofthe questions. 70. The appeal of the coaching centre is directed only againstthe observations of the learned single Judge contained in paragraphs 30and 31 of the impugned judgment. Mr. Krishnamoorthy submitted thatthis coaching centre is providing free coaching to candidates appearingfor competitive examinations and has been running since December, 2006and not just for the last seven months prior to the impugnedexamination , as alleged by some of the petitioners. As far as thissubmission is concerned, Mr. Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counselpointed out that the entire basis of the allegation was wrong. Thepattern of the question paper has been changed from the year 2004itself and not just from the disputed examination. The persons runningthe coaching centre, therefore, could not be faulted with for informingits students that the answers could be written in 5,200 words and onthat score itself, it could not be said that the coaching centre had anidea about the question paper that was to be set for the disputedexamination. He pointed out that the coaching centre was very popular,in that, even for getting admission to the coaching class, thecandidates had to pass an entrance test. He informed that this year,some 6000 students took the test to join this centre and out of them,some 200 passed and were selected for the coaching. 71. Mr. Krishnamoorthy disputed that 48 students from thiscoaching centre were selected by the TNPSC and they figured amongst the172 selected candidates. According to him, it is true that some 25candidates who received coaching from this coaching centre had passedthe UPSC Examination. However, as far as the disputed examinationconducted by the TNPSC is concerned, only four of their studentshave been selected. The learned senior counsel has filed a separateaffidavit giving the particulars of the selected candidates from thiscoaching centre.72. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any justificationon the part of the learned single Judge to give a finding against theconcerned Coaching Centre and therefore, W.A.No.1090 of 2009 standsallowed and the adverse findings against the Coaching Centre areexpunged. 73. Before we part with this matter, we would like to express ourhope that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission will be more careful https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in future while conducting the examinations. If the answers to thequestions posed are to be rendered in an objective manner, the PublicService Commission should be very vigilant about the correctness of theanswers. The paper setters and the examiners ought to have greaterconcern for the large number of candidates who give this examinationand whose future career depends upon their selection. We expect thePublic Service Commission to be much more thoughtful while settingpapers for the future examinations to be conducted by them. 74. With these observations, we dispose of all the proceedings.All the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The interimorders passed earlier shall stand vacated. In the facts andcircumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarab/sm/pvCopy to:- 1. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai – 600 002. 2. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Chief Secretary, Secretariat,Chennai – 600 009.3.The Secretary to Government,State of Tamil Nadu, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department,Fort St.George, Chennai-9.4.The Central Bureau of Investigate ,New Delhi.+2ccs to M/s.G.Vijay Anand Asso. & S.Kumar, Advocate Sr 48786 & 48787+2ccs to Mr.P.K.Rajah Praveen Kumar, Advocate Sr 48755+2ccs to Mr.Kamalanathan,Advocate Sr 48754+1cc to Mr.N.S.Sivakumar, Advocate Sr 48701+2ccs to Mr.K.Subramanian, Advocate Sr 48645+1cc to M/s.C.Uma, Advocate Sr 48531 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ +1cc to R.Narendhiran,Advocate Sr 485151+1cc to Mr.N.R.Rajagopalan, Advocate Sr 48788+4ccs to M/s. C.N.G.Ezhilarasi,Advocate Sr 48643KU & KLT (CO)km,Gsk,Sra/22.9.Writ Appeal Nos.649, 650, 651,652,653, 982, 1041, 1090 and 933 of 2009 & W.P.Nos.11486, 12840, 1841,12842, 12843,12844, 13786, 13016 and 13017 of 2009