A.B.Natarajan v. The Secretar

W.P.30885/04: (1)Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ ofcertiorarified mandamus calling for records pertaining to theselection of candidates for the Group-I 2000-2001 Services ofTamilnadu Government published by the respondent on 26.8.2004 inTamilnadu Daily Dina Thanthi and quash the same and direct the 1strespondent to re-draw the selection list in accordance with law andconsider the name of the petitioner for the said selection appointand pass such further order. (Prayer amended as per order dated11.6.2009 in WPMP No.187/09 in W.P.No.30885/04)W.P.17969/2004: Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ ofcertiorarified mandamus calling for records pertaining to the resultof Group-I main Exams 2000-01 quash the same and direct therespondent to consider the petitioner's claim for appointment inGroup-I Services (Prayer amended as per order dt.6.10.07 in WPMPNo.2202/07 in W.P.17969/2004.W.P.No.19851 of 2004: Writ petition praying to issue a Writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondentin connection with the result of selected candidates for the Group-oral interview 2000-01 which was held on 21.6.2004, 24.6.2004 whichis published on 5.6.04 in Tamil News Daily "Dinamani" and quash thesame as illegal arbitray and against the principles of legitimateexpectation and further direct the 2nd respondent to publish a freshlist after following all the procedures.W.P.482 of 2005: Writ Petition praying to issue a Writ of Mandamusdirecting the 4th repondent to comprehensively investigate theallegations of massive corruption and fraud in the examinations &recruitments conducted by the 3rd respondent – Commission over thepast decade since the introduction of multiple – subject system, andfurther be pleased to pass such other orders or writs setting-asideall the selections effected by the 3rd respondent – Commission, overthe past decade in the light of the law laid down by the SupremeCourt in paras 20 to 23 in the case of Krishnan Singh – Vs- State ofHaryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 165, which is a sine qua non on thisHon'ble Court. For petitioner in: Mr.Manikandavadhan ChettiarW.P.No.30885/2004For petitioner in: Mr.P.L.Velayutha Raja W.P.Nos.17969/04 for Mr.S.Umapathy and 482 of 2005For petitioners in: Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan,Sr.CounselW.P.No.19851/2004 for Mr.K.Soundarrajan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For respondents: Mr.R.Suresh Kumar for R.1, R.1, R.2 & R.3 TNPSC in Wps.30885,17969, 19851/04 & 482/05 respectively. Mr.T.Thirugnanam Spl.Govt.Pleader for R.1 & R.1 & R.2 in Wps.19851/04 & 482/05 respectively Mr.N.Chandrasekaran Special Public Prosecutor for R.4 in WP.No.482/05. Mr.V.Subbiah for R.52 in WP.No.30885 of 2004. .. COMMON ORDERIn all the above writ petitions, the issue involved relates tothe selection of candidates for Group-I Services by the Tamil NaduPublic Service Commission (TNPSC) for the year 2000-01, the resultof which was published on 25.8.2004. W.P.No.30885 of 2004 has beenfiled by one A.B. Natarajan, who appeared for Group I Examinations,having been selected in the preliminary examinations held in 2001 andin the main examinations held in February, 2002, declared as notselected in the oral test conducted between 21.6.2004 to 24.6.2004by the TNPSC, challenging the selection as published on 25.8.2004.He has subsequently filed WP.M.P.No.218 of 2007 for impleading one ofthe selected candidates viz., T.Jayaseelan and the said petition wasordered on 16.2.2007. Then, he impleaded other selected candidatesas respondents 3 to 92 as per order passed in WP.M.P.No.789 of 2008dated 22.4.2008. As per the direction of Court, he served notice onthe respondents 3 to 92 privately out of whom respondents 2, 4 to 6,11, 14, 16 to 18, 20, 21, 23, 27, 33 to 36, 39, 43, 44, 46, 51 to 55,57, 61 to 64,67 to 70, 73 to 75, 78,79, 90 and 91 were served andproof of affidavits were filed. However, in respect of remainingrespondents, the covers were returned. 2. Subsequently, by order passed in WP.M.P.187 of 2009 dated11.6.2009, the prayer in the writ petition was amended to challengethe abovesaid selection as published in the Tamil daily, 'DailyThanthi' dated 26.8.2004 and to direct the first respondent, TNPSCto redraw the selection list in accordance with law and to considerthe name of petitioner for selection and to appoint him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The respondents 2 to 92, the selected candidates, who havebeen served have not chosen to appear. 4. W.P.No.19851 of 2004 has been filed by 13 unselectedcandidates in the said Group-I examinations. 5. Likewise, W.P.No.17969 of 2004 has been filed by anotherbatch of 18 unselected candidates challenging the selection and theprayer in the said writ petition was subsequently amended as perorder in WP.M.P.No.2202 of 2007 dated 6.10.2007 to challenge theselection and for direction to the respondent to consider thepetitioners' claim for appointment in Group-I Services. Out of thesaid 18 petitioners, except the first petitioner S.Madhavan, allother petitioners have chosen to withdraw from the said writ petitionwhich was ordered by this Court on 30.8.2007 and the writ petitionwas dismissed in respect of petitioners 2 to 18 and hence, the firstpetitioner S.Madhavan, alone is maintaining the said writ petition.6. The said S.Madhavan has subsequently filed another writpetition in W.P.No.482 of 2005 impleading the Union of Indiarepresented by the Central Bureau of Investigation/Special PoliceEstablishment, New Delhi, as 4th respondent for a Mandamus directingthe said 4th respondent to comprehensively investigate into thealleged massive corruption and fraud in the examinations andrecruitment conducted by the TNPSC over the past decade since theintroduction of multiple subject system and to set aside theselection effected by the third respondent, TNPSC over the pastdecade, in the light of the views expressed by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in Krishan Singh vs. State opf Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 165].7. In all the above said writ petitions, of course, except thelast one viz., W.P.No.4508 of 2008, as it is earlier stated, Group Iexaminations conducted by the TNPSC for the year 2000-01 for whichfinal results were published on 26.8.2004 in newspapers arechallenged mainly on the ground that scaling technic followed by theTNPSC for the purpose of valuation and selection is not proper,that the candidates who were selected have committed breach ofcertain instructions issued by the TNPSC regarding the use of sketchpens, colour pencils, etc. and that while transferring marks from themark statements to mark sheets, mistakes have been committed by thestaff of the TNPSC. The petitioners have also alleged irregularitiesin granting dummy numbers. In W.P.No.482 of 2005, the petitioner hasalso stated that the markings in some of the answer papers of theselected candidates have been intentionally made to enable the staffof TNPSC to identify them and therefore, as per the judgment of theSupreme Court reported in Karnataka Public Service Commission vs.B.M.Vijaya Shankar [A.I.R. 1992 SC 952], such selected candidatesshould be disqualified. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. Further, he has given some of the instances stating thatnearly 8 selected candidates have usurped the posts even though theygot lesser marks. The instances given by the petitioner are, (i) the candidate with roll No.537915 who got 1240 marks, gotselected by bribe while the candidate with roll No.574504 who got1280 marks was not selected even though both fall under the samecategory viz., woman/general; (ii) the candidate with roll No.545588 who has scored 1278 marks wasselected by illegal means while the candidate with roll No.521364 whogot 1283 marks was not selected for the post of Commercial TaxOfficer, even though both belong to BC General category;(iii) the candidate with roll No.574245 who scored 1231 marks gotselected illegally while the candidate with roll No.562047 who scored1238 marks was not selected for the post of Deputy Registrar eventhough both belong to MBC general category;(iv) the candidate with roll No.519101 who scored 1186 marks wasselected while candidate with roll No.550621 who scored 1196 markswas not selected;(v) the candidate with roll No.592685 who scored 1179 marks gotselected while the candidate with roll No.550621 who scored 1196marks was unable to be selected for the post of Deputy Registrar,though both are coming under the same category viz., Scheduled caste/General Category.(vi) the candidate with roll No.502689 who scored 1164 marks wasselected while the candidate with roll No.526956 who obtained 1230marks was not selected for the pose of Deputy Registrar though bothare coming under the women general category;(vii) the candidate with roll No.523764 who scored 1198 marks wasselected while the candidate with roll No.585813 who scored 1217marks was not selected for the post of Deputy Registrar though bothare coming under woman general category;(viii) the candidate with roll No.604980 who scored 1172 marks wasable to be selected while the candidate with roll No.523763 whoscored 1216 marks was not selected for the post of DeputySuperintendent of Police though both are coming under woman generalcategory.9. As stated above, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.30885 of 2004with roll No.510193 who has taken political science and sociology asoptional subjects was selected in the preliminary examinations heldin 2001 and also selected in the main examinations held in 2002 andduring the oral tests he was awarded 150 marks while he scored 1045marks in the written examination, both put together totalling 1195marks. As it is seen in the affidavit filed by the said writpetitioner, A.B.Natarajan, he is stated to have completed 30 years ofage in October, 2004, accordingly, as on date, he must have completed35 years of age. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. In the counter affidavit filed by the TNPSC, it is statedthat the Commission has advertised by notification dated 27.12.2000inviting applications for direct recruitment to the posts under GroupI services for the year 2000-01 in respect of 95 vacancies, whichwere subsequently revised by the Government as 91 vacancies. Thereare two stages of selection viz., (i) written examination whichconsists of preliminary examination and main examination and (ii)viva voice and oral interview. The preliminary examinations is statedto be a screening test and the marks obtained therein would not becounted in the main written examinations for determining the finalorder of merit and the candidates to be admitted to the main writtenexaminations would be 10 times number of candidates to be recruitedsubject to the rule of reservation. The main written examinationconsists of written papers. It is also stated that while preliminaryqualifying examination consists of one paper and the main writtenexamination consists of six papers. It is also stated that if thenumber of vacancies notified/reserved to be filled up from anyreservation category like, SC/ST etc., the number of candidates to beadmitted to oral test shall be two times the number of vacancies tobe recruited against the said reserved group based on the marksobtained by candidates in the main examinations. If the number ofvacancies in any of the reservation groups of the same recruitmentis four and below, the number of candidates to be admitted to theoral test of the said particular reservation group shall be threetimes the number of vacancies to be recruited against the saidreservation group and the final selection would be made based on themarks obtained in the main written examination and the oral testtogether. The appearance in the main written examinations and theoral test is compulsory. 10(a). It is further stated that the writ petitioner inW.P.No.30885 of 2004, A.B.Natarajan with registration No.510193 wasselected in the preliminary examination and admitted to the mainwritten examination, in which he has chosen "Political Science andInternational Relations" and "Sociology" as the optional subjects inaddition to the general studies which is a compulsory subject andlanguage paper which is a qualifying paper. The candidates weregiven the option to answer either in English in full or in Tamil infull while the question papers were said to be both in English andTamil. It is stated that the writ petitioner has obtained 1045.23marks in the main written examinations after adopting scaling technicfor optional subjects. He has secured the following marks:General studies ... 412.50Political Science andInternational Relations... 293.23Sociology... 339.50 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The said writ petitioner belongs to MBC category. He was admitted tooral test, in which he has obtained 150 marks and the total markssecured by him is 1195.23. Since the cut-off mark for selection ofcandidates under MBC category was 1239.57, he was not selected. 10(b). It is stated that out of 778 candidates who have takenthe main written examination, 109 have opted for the subject"Political Science and International Relations" as one of theoptional subjects, out of whom 76 candidates have answered thequestions in Tamil. It is also stated that out of 91 candidatesselected for the appointment to the posts of Group I services in2000-01, 12 candidates opted for "Political Science and InternationalRelations". Out of them, 5 candidates have answered in Tamil andtherefore, it is denied that very few candidates who have opted for"Political Science and International Relations" were selected. It isalso stated that the experts in the subject having good knowledge inTamil alone were appointed for this recruitment to value the answerpapers. The Commission has also followed the double valuation andtriple valuation processes. It is stated that at first the answerbooks are valued by two examiners and the average marks secured inthe two valuation are taken into account. If the difference of marksbetween two valuation is more than 15 percentage, the answer sheet issent for third valuation to another examiner and in such case, theaverage of nearest two marks is taken into account. Therefore, theallegations made against the examiners for their valuation isdenied. 10(c). It is also stated that the Commission has adopted thescaling technic for valuation of answer books in the optionalsubjects as it is announced in the notification dated 27.12.2000.The purpose of using scaling technic is to minimise the subject biasand thus a fair chance is given to every subject so as to giverepresentation for candidates choosing any optional subjects. It isstated that the said technic was followed only after obtainingexperts opinion in the field and the same was followed by RajasthanPublic Service Commission. It is also stated that the scalingtechnic has been followed by the TNPSC in cases where number ofcandidates appeared in the subject were more than 5. In respect ofthe subjects where the candidates appeared are 5 or less than 5, theraw marks awarded were taken as scaled marks. It is also stated thatthere is no formula for scaling of marks which was universallyaccepted. It is stated that the non-following of scaling technicfor less than 5 candidates is not violation of Article 14. The marksobtained through scaling technic in optional subjects are added withthe raw marks in general subjects. 10(d). It is the case of the respondent Service Commission thatthe petitioner in the said writ petition while challenging the non-implementation of scaling system in case where the candidates are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ less than 5 in number, has taken a contradictory stand saying thatthe non-implementation of the scaling technic is violative of Article14. It is also stated that even before the said selection, the TNPSChas used the scaling technic in the year 1999-2000 and some of thecandidates who have objected to the said system have approached theTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1211 of 2002,etc. which were dismissed on 30.12.2002. 10(e). It is also the case of the TNPSC that the Supreme Courtin State of U.P. v. S.C.Dixit (AIR 2004 SC 163) has ruled that theadoption of scaling formula is not arbitrary or illegal. It is alsostated that even this Court has approved the non-following of scalingtechnic in respect of candidates who are less in number in anotherbatch of writ petitions. It is stated that while there is no disputeabout the marks obtained by the said writ petitioner in hisqualifying examinations, the same are not the factors to beconsidered in the competitive examinations. It is also stated thatfollowing the instructions of the Commission, 48 answer books wereinvalidated for the reason that the candidates have used colour pens,sketch pens, etc. for underlining and drawing in the answer books.It is also stated that in respect of valuation of answer books firstdummy numbers are given and only thereafter, the papers were handedover to examiners for valuation. After valuation, original numberswill be restored in answer books. The answer books were valued twiceby different examiners and the marks given by each examiner wereentered separately and totalled by the examiners themselves. Theanswer books were placed for third valuation in case the differenceof marks awarded by two examiners has exceeded 15% of total marks. 10(f). It is also stated that the role of Commission staff isrestricted only to verify and to ensure that only the marks awardedby the examiners were entered in the mark sheets and to scrutinse theanswer books to confirm that all answers were valued and if anyanswer was left unvalued and there is any discrepancy in awarding ofmarks, it is brought to the notice of the examiner concerned and theissue is settled then and there by the Commission. Therefore, thereis no scope for the staff of the TNPSC to commit any mistake. Theallegation in respect of written entry made in Group I ServiceCommission Examinations, 1999-2000 is denied. The main writtenexaminations for Group I Service Commission, 1999-2000 were held from9.2.2002 to 13.3.2002. There was a ban on recruitment issued by theGovernment in 2001 and the Government has confirmed the vacanciesonly on 18.3.2004 and directed that the results of the main writtenexaminations already held by the TNPSC be published and interview tobe completed after the Parliamentary Elections are over. Therefore,the results were published on 05.06.2004 and oral tests wereconducted from 21.06.2004 to 24.06.2004 and the selection wasfinalised in August, 2004 and therefore, there is no delay on thepart of the Service Commission in completing the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. In the counter affidavit filed by the TNPSC in the writpetition filed by S.Madhavan in W.P.No.482 of 2005 who is also theonly writ petitioner in W.P.No.17969 of 2004, the TNPSC has statedthat the said S.Madhavan who was selected in the preliminaryexamination has appeared for the main written examinations conductedbetween 9.2.2002 and 13.3.2002 and he was found not eligible to beadmitted to the oral tests conducted between 21.6.2004 to 24.6.2004.While denying the allegations made against the officials of the TNPSCand reiterating the stand in respect of the method of selection asstated in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.30885 of 2004, it isstated that in respect of candidates who have written the mainwritten examinations, they were summoned for oral tests and theirmarks were hosted in the Commission's web site after publication offinal results. In respect of OMR answer sheets which are used in thepreliminary examinations originally, the shading by HB pencil wasallowed. Due to the reason that the candidates who have wronglyshaded in the column and erased the same and shaded in some othercolumn and due to the reason of improper erasing of the originalshade it posed a problem for valuing the OMR answer sheets, theCommission has substituted blue/black ball point pen in the place ofHB pencil with the result, when answer is shaded it cannot be erased.This was effected from the year 2000 to put an end to the difficultyof scanning OMR answer sheets.11(a). It is stated that in paragraph-22 of the Commission'sinstructions etc., to candidates appearing for the main writtenexaminations, which in the form of descriptive type, it was mentionedthat the candidates who violate any one or more of the instruction(s)printed on the main answer book or in the memorandum of admissionwill be rejected and their answer books will be invalidated anddebarred for such period as the Commission may consider fit. In thenote annexed to the Memorandum of Admission it is stated that,"The candidates should not use colour pens, sketch pens,pencils except those permitted in the instructions etc. tocandidates for any purpose including drawing andhighlighting." It is explained that in the said note No.5 in the expression, 'colourpens, sketch pens, pencils' the term, 'colour' should be taken ascommon adjective and it should be read as colour pen, colour sketchpen, colour pencils. According to the respondent Commission, thesaid note does not prevent the use of HB pencils for drawing, etc. asit would not reveal the identity of the candidates. Therefore, thecandidates who have used HB pencils for drawing, etc. in the writtenexaminations for Group I were not invalidated while those who haveused colour sketch pens for underlining, highlighting, etc. havebeen invalidated. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11(b). It is stated that as per the representation received bythe Commission from the petitioner and others on 23.2.2002, it wasdecided not to take any action since 48 answer books of thosecandidates who have violated the instructions have been invalidated.It is also denied that any paper chasing, manipulation of marks andrecords connected to the selections deceiving the judiciary havetaken place. It is also stated that out of 741 candidates who haveappeared for main written examinations for Group I Service in 1997-98, 255 candidates have given some markings and fictitious names andthey were invalidated and out of the remaining answer sheetsevaluated, 252 candidates were selected for oral tests as per thenotification of the Commission dated 23.10.1999. After the electionwork was over, the answer books of 252 candidates which wereinvalidated were re-scrutinised and found that 253 out of 255, therehad been no revelation of their identity and consequently, theCommission has selected 139 candidates additionally for oral testsand the inclusion is only based on the principles of natural justiceand fair play and cannot be termed as mala fide. 11(c). It is also stated that in a batch of writ petitions inthe order dated 28.2.2001, the High Court has rejected the contentionof mala fide in respect of 1999-2000 selection and directed theCommission to proceed with the interview. It is also stated that inrespect of previous examinations, from 1996 to 1999, on publicationof selection list for admission to oral tests, some candidates whoappeared for Tamil language and literature have raised apprehensionthat keys provided by the examiners were not correct for large numberof questions. It was in those circumstances, the Commission hasrequested their experts to independently give the keys for thequestions in the subjects Tamil language and literature and aftergoing through the keys, it was found that the key answers given bythe examiners earlier in respect of few questions were wrong.Therefore, the entire examinations were cancelled in the interest offair play and justice. 11(d). When that was challenged before the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal, the Tribunal has upheld the conduct of theCommission as bona fide. The said cancellation for the earlier yearin respect of those papers was in consonance with the Apex Courtjudgment. In respect of the present selection for 2000-01, the maincontention is that the candidates who have obtained lesser marks havebeen selected. In this regard, it is stated that while selectionsare made it is not only the marks obtained in the writtenexaminations and the oral tests, but also based on the community andgender of the candidates and the communal roster apart from number ofvacancies available for the post is taken into consideration and insuch event, it is possible that a person who secured less markswould be selected for the post of Deputy Collector and a person whoscored more marks would have been selected for the post of Deputy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Superintendent of Police and therefore, marks have been taken intoconsideration based on the availability of posts in each category.It is also possible that a person who secured higher marks would notget selected at all to any post while the candidate with lesser markswould get selected to any of the posts. It is also stated that thepetitioner has chosen to make unwarranted remark against theconstitutional functionary in respect of the complaint about 2candidates in the year 1999-2000. 11(e). The respondent Commission has also given the differencebetween the raw marks and scaled marks. In the annexure to thecounter, the respondent Commission has explained the discrepanciespointed out by the petitioner in respect of some of the candidates.1) In respect of the selected candidate with register No.537915(T.Indra), she is stated to belong to MBC/DC (Woman), in respect ofwhich the cut-off mark was 1239.75 and she has secured 1239.75 marks(not 1240 as alleged by the petitioner) and she got selected asCommercial Tax Officer (S). However, the candidate with rollno.574504 stated to have not been selected in spite of obtaining 1280marks (J.Ananthi), it is stated that she belongs to BC (Woman) andnot MBC (Woman) and for BC (woman) community the cut-off mark forDRCS (S) is 1231.14, while she got 1280.32 (not 1280 as stated by thepetitioner) and was selected as Deputy Registrar of Co-operativeSocieties (S).(2) In respect of the selected candidate with roll No.545588(M.Jeyaraman), he belongs to MBC(DC - General) and not BC-General asstated by the petitioner) and he secured 1277.86 marks (not 1278 asalleged by the petitioner). While the cut-off mark required for MBC(DC-General) was 1277.86, he was selected as Commercial Tax Officer(S). However, the candidate with register No.521364(V.M.Chandirasekaran) who belongs to BC (G) and secured 1282.58 marks(not 1283 as stated by the petitioner) was selected as DeputyRegistrar of Co-operative Societies (S) for which community the cut-off mark was 1313.58 for the post of Deputy Registrar of Co-operativeSocieties while the cut-off mark for the post of Commercial TaxOfficer for that category was 1213.58 and therefore, he was notselected as Commercial Tax Officer. (3) Likewise, in respect of the candidate with register No.574245(S.Yasodha Devee), she belongs to MBC (DC-woman) and not MBC (DC-General) as stated by the petitioner. She has secured 1231.88 marks(not 1231 as stated by the petitioner) and the cut-off mark was1200.09 and she was selected as Deputy Registrar of Co-operativeSocieties (S). In respect of register No.562047 (P.Balamurugan)stated to have been not selected for the post of Deputy Registrar, hebelongs to MBC (DC-General) and secured 1238.72 marks (not 1238 asstated by the petitioner) and selected as Deputy Registrar of Co- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ operative Societies (RL) since the cut-off mark required as per thecommunity status was 1239.57 for the selection as Deputy Registrar.(4) In respect of register No.519101 (T.Vanitha) who belongs to SC(W)(not SC General, as stated by the petitioner), she secured 1186.62marks (not 1186 as stated by the petitioner) and she was selected asDeputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (S) for whom the cut-offmark was 1163.70. The alleged non-selected candidate with registerNo.550621 (S.Prakash) belongs to SC (G) and secured 1195.74 marks(not 1196 as stated by the petitioner) and selected as DeputyRegistrar of Co-operative Societies(RL) and since the cut-off mark required for SC (General) for the post of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (S) was 1197.23.(5) In respect of register No.592685 (G.Lakshmi Priya) she belongs toSC(W) and not SC (G) as stated by the petitioner and she secured1179.36 marks (not 1179 as stated by the petitioner) and got selectedas Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (GT)(S) while therequired cut-off mark for the said post for the candidates belongingto SC(W) was 1163.70. On the other hand, in respect of the registerNo.550621 (S.Prakash) who is stated to have not been selected for thesaid post, he belongs to SC (G) and obtained 1195.74 marks (not 1196as stated by the petitioner) and he got selected as Deputy Registrarof Co-operative Societies (RL) while the required cut-off mark for SC(G) for DRCS (S) is 1197.23.(6) In respect of register No.502689 (G.Chitrapavai), she belongsto SC(W) and not Woman (G) as stated by the petitioner). She secured1163.70 marks and not 1164 as stated by the petitioner and gotselected as Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (S) for whichthe cut-off mark required was 1163.70. On the other hand, in respectof register No.526958 (not 526956 as wrongly stated by thepetitioner) (D.Shanmugapriya) she belongs to a different categoryviz., BC(W) and secured 1229.27 marks and not 1230 as stated by thepetitioner and she was not selected due to the reason that for BC(W),the required cut-off mark is 1231.14.(7) In respect of register No.523764 while correct number is 523763(P.Malathi) she belongs to BC(W) and obtained 1215.88 marks and not1198 as stated by the petitioner. The required cut-off mark was1231.14. While she has not opted for Deputy Superintendent of Police,it is stated that she has already been selected as Deputy Registrarof Co-operative Societies in the previous recruitment. On the otherhand, the register No.585813 (K.Meena) who belongs to BC(W) andobtained 1216.91 marks (not 1217 as stated by the petitioner) waskept under Deputy Superintendent of Police (RL) since the requiredcut-off mark was 1229.72 and 1231.14. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (8) In respect of register No.604980 (Shyamaladevi), she belongs toMBC(DC-W) and not woman General as stated by the petitioner and shesecured 1171.96 marks and not 1172 as stated by the petitioner. Shewas selected as Deputy Superintendent of Police(S) for which the cut-off mark was 1171.96. On the other hand, in respect of the registerNo.523763 (P.Malathi), she belongs to BC (W) who secured 1215.88 andnot 1216 as stated by the petitioner. The cut-off mark required was1229.72 and she has not opted for Deputy Superintendent of Police asshe was already selected as Deputy Registrar of Co-operativeSocieties in the previous recruitment. 12. With the above said pleadings, the parties have approachedthis Court by filing the said writ petitions. This Court, by orderdated 31.7.2007 made in W.P.No.30885 of 2004, taking note of the factthat the learned counsel for TNPSC Mr.R.Sureshkumar has brought theentire answer scripts of Group I examinations 2000-01 in respect of91 selected candidates, has appointed Mr.V.Stalin, advocate asadvocate-Commissioner to check the answer papers and file a report asto whether the candidates have used pencil or sketch pencil/colourpencil. After checking the answer papers, the said advocateCommissioner has filed a report dated 16.8.2007. In the said report,the learned Advocate-Commissioner has pointed out that in respect ofeach paper, the markings were written in pen and pencil and were usedfor diagram and graph. The pencil was used for underliningsentences, graphs, etc. in respect of 60 papers in general studies,two papers in Geology, one paper in sociology, nine papers inPolitical Science and International Relations, 12 papers in GeneralEnglish, 12 papers in General Tamil, 14 papers in Agriculture paper-I, 4 papers in Forestry Paper-I, six papers in Mechanical EngineeringPaper I, 28 papers in General studies Paper II, 30 in Tamil languageand literature Paper I, 6 papers in History Paper I, 47 in GeographyPaper I, one paper in General English, 2 papers in General Tamil, 23papers in General Studies Paper I, 7 papers in History Paper II, 11papers in History Paper I, 4 papers in Sociology Paper I, 4 papers inSociology Paper II, and in all 283 papers. 13. The petitioners have filed objections to the said reportraising doubt about the answer papers as to whether they relate tothe impugned examinations on the basis that the answer scripts haveexceeded the total number of candidates who got selected and hence,the answer scripts produced could have been for differentexaminations, that the answer scripts of candidates have beendeliberately left in middle of pages, that the Commissioner has notindicated about various markings made in the answer papers, that inrespect of five answer scripts with dummy Nos.007110, 007179, 007476,0007501 and 0007533, the written numbers were corrected by theexaminers which has not been considered by the Commissioner, that theadvocate-Commissioner has not checked the total number of answer https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ scripts despite the request and that there has been some factualerrors regarding some of the dummy numbers.14. After the said advocate-Commissioner's report, when thematter was taken up for hearing, after elaborate arguments by therespective counsel and taking note of the fact that the learnedcounsel appearing for the TNPSC has produced 14 bundles of answerpapers pertaining to 91 candidates who were selected in thecompetitive examinations 2000-01 viz., 637 answer scripts, this Courtby order dated 23.1.2009 appointed Mr.S.R.Sundar as advocate-Commissioner, directing to file a report after verifying 637 answerscripts in respect of 91 candidates produced by the TNPSC indicatingthat the report shall be in respect of (a) the use of sketch pen in answer papers; (b) the use of pencils in answer papers; (c) the use of two colours; (d) making of some marks if used in the answer sheets like cross,crescent and Om; (e) writing of name of candidate, if any, in the answer sheets; and (f) writing question numbers wrongly in the answer sheets and thenmaking alterations in that regard. This Court has also suggested a format so that the advocate-Commissioner can make a proper verification. 15. The learned advocate-Commissioner has thereafter filed adetailed report dated 20.2.2009 in one volume containing annexure Iand II. That apart, the advocate Commissioner has filed threevolumes running to 440 pages each, relating to annexure III bygiving a detailed candidate-wise report in respect of each paper.The Advocate Commissioner has also filed four CDs along with hisreport.16. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P.No.30885of 2004 has filed an objection to the said Commissioner's reportrelating to three sketch pen used papers and the objection is asfollows: Dummy No.Findings of the 1stAdvocate CommissionerTNPSC's Remarks007410Written in pen. Blacksketch used fordiagram.The candidate has used black colourink for writing and drawing. Thematerial used for drawing thediagram could not be identifiedwhether it is black sketch or blackpen. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Dummy No.Findings of the 1stAdvocate CommissionerTNPSC's Remarks007426Written in blue pen.Black sketch used forunderlining sentences.The candidate has used blue colourball point pen for writing theanswers and black colour ink forunderlining the headings. Thematerial used for unerlining couldnot be identified whether it isblack sketch or black pen.175351Written in pen. Redsketch used to markplaces in India Map.The candidates has used only Redsketch dots and spot the places inthe map.17. Mr.Manikandan Vathan Chettiar, learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner in W.P.No.30885 of 2004, W.P.No.17964,2004 andW.P.No.482 of 2005 has submitted that even as per the second reportof the advocate Commissioner, it is prima facie made clear that theanswer papers of the selected candidates are found to have been usedsketch pens, pencils, markers, etc. against the instructions of theTNPSC and in spite of the same, those answer scripts were notinvalidated and those candidates were selected and therefore, it is afit case for a detailed investigation by CBI. He would also submitthat the selection has to be set aside relying upon the judgment ofthe Supreme Court in Krishan Yadav and another State of Haryana andothers [1994 (4) SCC 165]. He would also refer to the conditions inthe Hall Ticket as well as the notification issued by the TNPSC andsubmit that on the face of it, there has been gross violation of thenotification in respect of selected candidates. 17(a). By referring to the counter affidavit filed by therespondent in the said writ petitions, especially in W.P.No.30885 of2004 and W.P.No.482 of 2005 he submitted that when the TNPSC hasinvalidated 48 answer scripts in respect of other candidates, similaract should have been done in respect of 91 candidates inasmuch as theadvocate Commissioner has found that the markings were made which areagainst the notification. It is his submission that when thecandidates have used any mark which is prohibited as per theinstructions issued by the TNPSC, the same should be construed as amalpractice as it is immaterial as to whether such markings wasactually capable of making indications to the examiners whilevaluation. It is his further submission that as TNPSC is performingconstitutional functions, it is bound by its own instructions andwhen such instructions are not followed by the candidates, it ismandatory duty of the TNPSC to invalidate those answer sheets and theCommission cannot take a different stand in respect of thosecandidates on the basis that the markings are not in the nature ofmaking indications to the examiners for being influenced. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17(b). He would submit that the scaling technic which is statedto have been used in respect of main written examinations have notbeen followed based on any sound expert's opinion. Even otherwise,according to him, such technic should have been followed uniformlyand it is not open to the Commission to use such technic only inrespect of certain cases and not to use the same in respect of othercases at its discretion. He would also submit that as far as thepetitioner in W.P.No.30885 of 2004, A.B.Natarajan is concerned, hegot selected upto oral interview and he belongs to MBC category andhe obtained 1195 marks with serial No.125 while the last candidateselected with serial No.76 got 1239 marks. He would further submitthat while S.Madhavan, petitioner in W.P.No.17969 of 2004 andW.P.No.482 of 2005 who is stated to have failed in final writtenexamination has got 368th rank with 952.27 marks.17(c). He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court inUnion of India vs. N.Chandrasekaran [AIR 1998 SC 795] to substantiatehis contention that violation of instructions issued by the ServiceCommission itself is sufficient to infer malpractice. He would alsorely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Karnataka PublicService Commission vs. B.M. Vijaya Shankar [AIR 1992 SC 952] apartfrom Dr.M.Vennila vs. TNPSC rep. By its Deputy Secretary, Chennai andothers [2006(3) MLJ 376] and Central Board of Secondary Education vs.Ms.Vineeta Mahajan and another [AIR 1994 SC 733].18. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner in other petition would submit that the TNPSC being aconstitutional authority must be more transparent. When it is foundby the Advocate-Commissioner on fact that violations have been madein the selection of candidates and the selected candidates have tosuffer for the same and the valuers as well as Public ServiceCommission are also to be declared to be guilty. He submits thatwhen colour pencils or other markings are made, it should be treatedas indications to the valuers. It is also stated by the learnedsenior counsel that the conditions given by way of instructions bythe Public Service Commission have to be followed as it is and no newwords can be included as conveniently done by the Service Commission.The valuation by giving more marks to the candidate who is noteligible as per the instructions itself is sufficient to declare thatthe selection process is null and void and corrupt practice need notbe proved and it has to be inferred. 18(a). As far as the scaling method is concerned, he wouldsubmit that inasmuch as the Service Commission itself has notunderstood the method, the use of such method was only detrimental tothe interest of the candidates who have appeared for the examinationsespecially who were not selected. He would submit that any systemfor the purpose of identifying the candidates for selection should be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ understandable. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Courtin Sanjay Singh and another vs. U.P.Public Service Commission,Allahabad and another [2007(3) SCC 720]. According to him, if thescaling of marks is taken into account as raw-marks obtained by thecandidates, it is an illegal process and the selection has to be setaside. It cannot be said that the scaling system was explained inthe original notification itself in respect of final writtenexaminations and only after knowing that the candidates participatedin the selection process and therefore, they cannot question the samelater, since, according to the learned senior counsel, the methoditself as it was not known to the Service Commission, was notunderstandable to anyone including the petitioners and only afterthey came to know about implication of the system, they arechallenging the same which is well within their rights. 19. On the other hand, Mr.R.Sureshkumar, learned counselappearing for the TNPSC has submitted that it is not open to thepetitioners to challenge the selection process. He would submit thatone paper in the preliminary examination is objective type and thecandidates are selected for main written examinations from thepreliminary examination at the ratio of 1:10 based on the vacanciesand therefore 922 candidates were selected for appearing in the mainexaminations since at that time, the number of vacancies wereidentified as 92, which of course later on was decreased to 91.Actually 832 candidates had written main examinations and 74candidates had absented and out of the remaining 832 candidates, someof them had absented for some papers, with the result the actualnumber of persons who had written all the papers in the final mainexaminations was 773. Out of the said candidates, candidates werecalled for oral tests on the basis of 1:2 ratio and accordingly, 182candidates who had written final main written examinations werecalled for based on the marks obtained by them. Therefore, it is hissubmission that there is no illegality in the selection process. 20. After considering the elaborate arguments made by therespective counsel, the following points are culled out to be decidedin this case:1) The objection raised by the petitioner S.Madhavan inW.P.No.482 of 2005, especially relating to 8 instances asenumerated above wherein it is stated that at least the saideight candidates were selected due to corrupt practice,while other corresponding 8 persons who have scored moremarks have been denied their rights of selection.2) The introduction of scaling system in respect of optionalsubjects chosen by the candidates in the main writtenexaminations as to whether the same is arbitrary orresulting in impropriety in the process of selection. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3) The violation of instructions given by the TNPSC inanswering the questions in the main written examinationpapers, as to whether such violations can be treated asmaking indication to the examiners while valuing for anyundue favouritism and consequently, as to whether suchselection should be interfered with, especially in the lightof detailed report of second advocate-Commissioner.21. On the broad principles formulated and based on thepleadings and contentions of the learned counsel for the respectiveparties, I propose to take each and every one of the above points forconsideration one by one.POINT-(1)The allegations about 8 candidates who were selected as it isreferred to by the petitioner in W.P.No.482 of 2005 are taken intoconsideration, since the same pose a serious question about thealleged discrimination in making selection. It is no doubt true thatif the said allegations in respect of 8 selected candidates are foundto be correct, there would be at least 8 other candidates remainunselected who are alleged to have got more marks than the selectedcandidates and certainly it should be construed either as a corruptor malpractice in the selection process and this Court would nothesitate to interfere in the matter and set aside such selectionignoring the long lapse of time after the selection was made and theselected candidates were appointed and are comfortable in service fora substantial period of nearly 4 or 5 years. But, as I have elicitedabove, in respect of each and every one of the eight candidates asexplained in detail by the TNPSC in the counter affidavit filed inW.P.No.482 of 2005, it is seen that those candidates were selectedfor the posts like, Commercial Tax Officer, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Deputy Superintendent of Police, etc. and it isnot in dispute that out of 91 vacancies for which applications werecalled for by the respondent TNPSC on 27.12.2000 under Group Iexaminations, 2000-01, in the Tamil Nadu Civil Services in respect ofthe post of Deputy Collector, 24 vacancies were notified. Likewise,in Tamil Nadu Police Service, for the post of Deputy Superintendentof Police (Category I) 20 vacancies were notified. In Tamil NaduCommercial Tax Service, for the post of Commercial Tax Officer, 10vacancies were notified. In the Tamil Nadu Co-operative SocietiesService, for the post of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies33 vacancies were notified. In Tamil Nadu Panchayat DevelopmentService, for the post of Divisional Development Officer, 5 vacancieswere notified. In Tamil Nadu General Service for the post ofDistrict Employment Officer, 2 vacancies were notified, while for thepost of Divisional Fire Officer in Tamil Nadu Fire Service, onevacancy was notified. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 21 (a). Out of the above vacancies as it is seen in thenotification issued by the TNPSC the said vacancies were distributedas follows:1Deputy Collector SC .. 5 (2-W)ST .. NilMBC/DC .. 5 (2-W)BC .. 7 (2-W)GTS .. 7 (2-W)Total .. 24 (8-W)2Deputy Superintendent of Police(Category-I)SC .. 4 (1-W)ST .. NilMBC/DC .. 4 (1-W)BC .. 6 (2-W)GT .. 6 (2-W)Total .. 20 (6-W)3Commercial Tax Officer SC .. 2 (1-W)ST .. NilMBC/DC .. 2(1-W)BC .. 3(1-W)GT .. 3(1-W)Total .. 10(4-W)4Deputy Registrar of Co-operativeSocieties (DRCS)SC .. 7(2-W)ST .. NilMBC/DC .. 7(2-W)BC .. 9(3-W)GT .. 10(3-W)Total .. 33(10-W)5Divisional Development OfficerSC .. 1ST .. NilMBC/DC .. 1BC .. 1GT .. 2(1-W)Total .. 5(1-W) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6District Employment Officer SC .. 1ST .. NilMBC/DC .. NilBC .. NilGT .. 1Total .. 27Divisional Fire Officer SC .. NilST .. NilMBC/DC .. NilBC .. NilGT .. 1Total .. 1The distribution was arrived at based on the roster system applicablein the concept of reservation in the State of Tamil Nadu, about whichthere is no dispute. On the basis of the said particulars, it isclear that the vacancies in respect of each category including womancategory are to be filled up by roster. It goes without saying thatthe cut-off marks in respect of various posts in various categoriesof reserved communities will differ even though the posts are comingunder the same Group I category. 21(b). In all eight incidents given in the above writ petition,the case of the writ petitioner is that the persons who have gothigher marks in the same category were denied respective posts whilethe persons with less marks were selected. As it is explained above,the said allegation made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner istotally false and baseless. It is not as if the candidates who arestated to have been deprived were not selected, but they wereselected for a different post which may be, according to thepetitioner, lower in status and that cannot be decided in this case,since the affected persons are not before this Court. That apart,the said persons are not at all affected. The entire facts stated inthe counter affidavit would show that in almost all cases thecandidates who are stated to have been affected have got more marksbut they belong to different categories under communal system. Forexample, in respect of first complaint regarding the registerNo.545588 relating to one M.Jeyaraman, he was selected and he belongsto MBC/DC (G) category, whereas the petitioner has chosen to comparethe selected candidate with the register No.521364 relating to oneV.M.Chandirasekaran, who belongs to BC(G) category for whom there isdifferent cut-off mark which is more. Due to that reason, he was not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ selected for Commercial Tax Officer but he was given the next post ofDeputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In fact, in respect ofother two cases, the candidates were already selected in the previousselection as Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and in thepresent selection for the year 2000-01, they were offered DeputySuperintendent of Police on the basis of the marks obtained by themfor which they refused to opt. In the circumstances, when this isnot repudiated, it is not possible to accept the first contentionraised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As stated earlier,the abovesaid issue was taken up firstly for the reason that it wasthe most grave allegation. POINT-(2)22. In respect of scaling system, in the notification issuedoriginally, as noticed above, in clause No.10, NOTE:(iv), it isstated as follows:"The scaling technic for evaluation of answer paperswill be adopted in the main written examination".The contention is that the said system adopted for the writtenexamination is improper. An attempt is made as it is explained inpara-10 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.30885 of2004 that the said scaling technic is used contrary to theexplanation given in the book on Scaling Techniques by V.Natarajanand K.Gunasekaran in the preface. The grievance does not appear tobe that the scaling technic as such should not be used, but thecomplaint is that if the scaling technic is used, it must be useduniformly in respect of all papers, whereas the TNPSC has taken astand that where the number of candidates are less than 5, scalingtechnic is not used and instead, the average of raw marks is takeninto consideration. Therefore, according to the petitioner, theusing of scaling technic in all cases expect where the number ofcandidates is less than 5, is a discrimination. 22(a). In this regard, it is stated in the counter affidavitfiled by the TNPSC that the fact that the scaling technic will beused for optional subjects has been intimated in the originalnotification dated 27.12.2000 and the purpose is to minimise thesubject bias and to give a fair chance to every subject so that therepresentation by the candidates choosing different optional subjectscan be more. It is stated that only after obtaining necessaryexpert's opinion, the technic is put to use and it is also enforcedin Rajasthan Public Service Commission and the respondent Commissionis using it with slight modification to the effect that the scalingtechnic has to be used in respect of cases where the candidates aremore than 5 in number. It is also stated that in case the number ofcandidates is less than 5, in the absence of any statistical provenformula to scale such small size of candidates, the raw marks awardedare taken as scaled marks. The concept of scaling as per expert's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ opinion is explained by the TNPSC stating that in the said system ofscaling the arithmetic mean and standard deviation of marks in eachsubject is calculated and then, the individual marks are scaled upor scaled down using the formula with reference to the participationin the particular subject by which the bias is minimised and fairchance is given to each subject giving opportunity to the candidatesto choose any optional subject. Therefore it is stated that scalingmarks depends upon the number of candidates appeared for the optionalsubject, arithmetic mean of the subject and standard deviation of thesubject. It is stated that after arriving at the scaling marks inrespect of optional subjects, the same is added with raw marks whichare the marks on general papers and therefore, the merit is not givena go bye. It is also stated that even prior to the presentrecruitment, the scaling technic had been used for valuation duringthe year 1999-2000 and when the candidates who were not selected fororal interview, questioned the system, the Administrative Tribunaldismissed the same by order dated 30.12.2002 in O.A.Nos.1211 of 2002,etc. 22(b). In the valuation system of examinations, it has been anuniversally approved formula, in cases where different subjects aregiven as optional subjects and there is a possibility for disparityamong the candidates in awarding marks in each subject andtherefore, to give opportunity to all subjects to be consideredfairly and on equal basis, the technic of scaling is followedthroughout. In fact, as correctly submitted by the learned counselfor the respondent/TNPSC, in State of U.P.v. S.C. Dixit (AIR 2004 SC163), the Supreme Court, while dealing with the rule brought in byway of an Amendment Act, 1976, by which the U.P.Public ServiceCommission has been vested with the power to eliminate the variationof marks in various subjects, held as follows: "30. There is a vast percentage difference in awardingmarks between each set of examiners and this was sought tobe minimised by applying the scaling formula. If scalingmethod had not been used, only those candidates whose answersheets were examined by liberal examiners alone would getselected and the candidates whose answer sheets wereexamined by strict examiners would be completely excluded,though the standard of their answers may be to some extentsimilar. The scaling system was adopted with a view toeliminate the inconsistency in the marking standards of theexaminers. The counsel for the respondents could notdemonstrate that the adoption of scaling system has in anyway caused injustice to any meritorious candidates. If anycandidate had secured higher marks in the writtenexamination, even by applying the scaling formula, he wouldstill be benefited. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

31. The Division Bench of the High Court observed thatthe process of scaling was done examiner-wise only and thescaling formula did not take into consideration the averageof Mean of all the candidates in one particular paper buttook mean of only that group of candidates which has beenexamined by one single examiner. The counsel for theU.P.P.S.C. submitted that the observation made by the HighCourt is incorrect. The scaling formula was adopted toremove the disparity in the evaluation of 14 examiners whoparticipated in the evaluation of answer sheets and thedetails have also been furnished as to how the scalingformula was adopted and applied. Therefore, we do not thinkthat the observation of the Division Bench that theCommission did not take care of varying standards which mayhave been applied by different examiners but has sought toreduce the variation of the marks awarded by the sameexaminer to different candidates whose answer sheets hadbeen examined, is correct. The Division Bench was of theview that as a result of scaling, the marks of thecandidates who had secured zero marks were enchanced to 18and this was illegal and thus affected the selectionprocess. This finding is to be understood to mean as to howthe scaling system was applied. 18 marks were givennotionally to a candidate who secured zero marks so as toindicate the variation in marks secured by the candidatesand to fix the mean marks."22(c). That apart, in respect of exactly a similar contentionwhich has been raised in this case, that the non-adopting of scalingsystem in cases where the number of candidates is less than 5 willcreate disparity among the candidates, this Court in WP.M.P.No.19520and 28605 of 2004 in W.P.No.16516 of 2004, held as follows:"It is the grievance of the petitioners that a personwho writes a paper, for which there are not many students,is likely to have an advantage of raw marks. This is alsoanswered by respondent (Tamil Nadu Public ServiceCommission) who explains the reason why the individual marksare not scaled up or scaled down, where there are 3 or 4students for a particular paper."22(d). There is one more aspect to be considered in this casethat there is absolutely no proof to show that by following thescaling technic, the petitioners were affected. Further, it is alsonot proved that by applying the scaling technic or restricting theapplication of the same in cases where the number of candidates aremore than 5, there is any discrimination or damage caused to theprospects of the petitioners. In fact, placing reliance on thejudgment of the Supreme Court cited supra, Prabha Sridevan,J. in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ above order which has become final, has extracted the counteraffidavit of TNPSC explaining the scaling technic in the followingwords:"The Following is the Scaling formula:- (Generally) (Iftotal marks 100 for subject)X=50% + 10% X-X = 50+10X=The scaled marks in percentageX=Raw marks obtained by the candidate in the subject.X=Mean marks obtained by the candidates in the subject.=Standard Deviationas the optional subject contains two paperseach of 300 marks and totally 600 marks, the Commission hasadopted the following formula.X=A + B x-xWhere,X=Scaled mark of the candidate in the subjectX=Raw mark of the candidate in the subjectX=Mean marks of all candidates in the subject=Standard Deviation of the marks in the subject.Where A and B are constant. A being 50% of totalmarks in the subject i.e. 50% of 600 + 300 and B being 10%of total marks i.e. 10% of 600 = 60."22(e). Considering the similar submission which has been raisedin the present case it was held in paragraph-6, which is as follows:"6. The T.N.P.S.C. does not resort to scaling techniquewhere the students, who have appeared for the particularsubject are less than 5, for those students,l raw marks areawarded. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out inOption No.1, the students, who have obtained 442 marks, willget scaled marks of 364.15. In option No.2, the students,who have obtained 442 marks, will get the scaled mark of356.93, where as if the students who have written theexamination is only four, he will get his raw marks of 442.According to the petitioners this will cause injustice,because the students who have obtained higher marks as inOptions 1 & 2, will have all their marks scaled down. Thestudents who have appeared in certain subjects, for whichthere are not many students will get the advantage of raw https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ marks, totally the aggregate marks will be higher thanothers."22(f). The learned Judge, while extracting the details ofscaling technic as explained by Allahabad High Court in SC Dixitv.State of U.P. Public Service Commission(2003 (2) AIC 191) in paras8, 9, 10 and also referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court inUnion of India v. Chandrasekaran (AIR 1995 SC 795), held that thepetitioners having appeared for written examinations based on thecontents of instructions issued by the Public Service Commission,cannot subsequently raise objections against the contents ofnotification about the scaling system. In any event, the scalingsystem which may be purely mathematical in its sense cannot be saidto be arbitrary, especially when it is the case of the respondent andthat the same is not in dispute that in respect of compulsory papersthe raw marks are added and therefore, the balance is beingmaintained. In cases where the number of students writing aparticular paper is minimal, certainly there is no possibility forequating the candidates with others and in such circumstances, takingthe raw marks alone into consideration along with the compulsorysubjects cannot be stated to be detrimental to the very concept ofvaluation. In such view of the matter, I do not agree with thecontention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in thisregard. In the result, the contention against the scaling systemthat is followed by the Public Service Commission in cases where thecandidates are more than 5 in number has to be rejected, andaccordingly, rejected. 22(g). The concept of scaling system which is differently calledas, 'stanine grade' which is in existence in number of Universitiesin the world, defined as, 'star scale' was initiated to normalise twostandard courses for grouping and percentile the ranks and the samehas been prescribed as a method of selection in the University ofAlberta, Indiana, University of Persi where 9 scale stanine is beingadopted. That apart, Ohio State University has also recognised themethod of stanine as a mode of selection. In fact, the standardgrading system like, stanine has been followed by the Indian Schoolof Certificate External Examination, New Delhi for the internationalassessment. The said stanine and the standard grading system ofselection which was for the purpose of equalising the candidates fromvarious disciplines by way of grades has been proved to be anintrinsic mathematical method and it stood the test of time, sincethe arbitrariness in such selection has been found to be veryminimal. In fact, the said method of selection came to be approvedby this Court in respect of admission process in the ChristianMedical College, Vellore in a batch of writ appeals in W.A.Nos.494,812 and 495 of 2007 in P.Arunkumar and another vs. State of TamilNadu rep. By its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ St.George, Chennai 9 and others [2007 WLR 965], the Division Benchconsisting of the then Hon'ble Chief Justice (A.P.Shah,J.) andmyself, held as follows:"42. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Stanine GradeSystem is unknown in the method of selection for the reasonthat it is complicated and requires mathematically trainedmind to understand. That itself cannot be a ground to brushaside the said method of selection, which can never bestated to be either prejudicial or discreminatory betweenthe candidates."22(h). The scaling system which has been adopted as it wasfound in the original notification in the selection process of theTNPSC cannot be said to be a method which should be disapproved. Asfar as the application of the said system in the cases where thenumber of candidates are more than 5 and resorting to following rawmark system in cases where the number of candidates are less thanfive is concerned, it is for the authorities to decide as to whichsystem they have to follow and it is not for this Court to interferewith the same, at this stage. In any event, by applying the saidscaling system, the petitioners in the writ petitions especiallyMr.A.B.Natarajan and Mr.S.Madhavan are not at all affected. On theother hand, as it is submitted by the learned counsel for the TNPSC,both the petitioners got the benefit of the scheme in the sense thatby the application of scaling system, their marks have in factincreased. 22(i). It is seen that in respect of the petitioner inW.P.No.30885 of 2004 viz., A.B.Natarajan, he has appeared in the mainwritten examinations by selecting Sociology and Political Scienceapart from compulsory paper general studies. It is stated that eachsubject was having two papers and each paper was having the maximum300 marks. In the said subjects viz., Political Science, Sociologyand general studies, the answer scripts were sent for secondvaluation and the average of both the valuations was taken intoconsideration as the final mark obtained by him. The following arethe marks stated to have been obtained by A.B.Natarajan in the firstand second valuation:Main Examination1st Valuation2nd ValuationPolitical Science - I128160/300Political Science - II125158/300General Studies-I172145/300General Studies-II265243/300Sociology-I139155/300 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Main Examination1st Valuation2nd ValuationSociology-II149160/300Total9781021/300The marks obtained by him in the first and second valuations and theaverage of the two and also the raw marks are as follows:General Studies Paper I172+145=317/2=158.50General Studies Paper II265=243=508/2=254.00412.5Political Science Paper I128=160=288/2=144.00Political Science Paper I125=158=283/2=141.50 =285.50Sociology Paper I139+155=294/2=147.00Sociology Paper II149=160=309/2=154.50 =301.5022(j) It is stated that the Political Science and Sociologyselected by the said candidate were subject to scaling technic.While the raw marks obtained by him in political science as statedabove was 285.50, after applying scaling technic, he was awarded293.23. Likewise, in Sociology, the raw marks obtained by him asstated above was 301.50 and after applying the scaling technic, hewas awarded the marks 339.50. It was based on the said scalingtechnic, the marks of the petitioner in WP.No.30885 of 2004,A.B.Natarajan, who originally obtained 1021 marks out of 1800 on thebasis of raw marks, was enhanced to 1045.23 out of 1800 and therebyhe secured more marks than his original raw marks. After adding themarks awarded to him in the oral tests, viz., 150, his marks hasbecome 1195.23, but the last candidate selected had scored 1239.57marks under M.B.C. category to which he belongs. 22(k). Likewise, in respect of S.Madhavan, the writ petitionerin W.P.No.17969 of 2004, he selected Geography and History asoptional subjects. It is stated that his papers were sent for thirdvaluation since the difference between first and second valuationswas more than 15% and after third valuation, the nearest two markswere taken into consideration by which he obtained the followingmarks:General Studies I:173.50General Studeis II:156.50Geography I:187.50Geography II:140.00History I:174.00History II: 120.00 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The total marks which the petitioner S.Madhavan secured was 951.50out of 1800 and after applying the scaling system, he secured 952.27marks. But, the last person selected under B.C. Category got 1032.94marks whereas the petitioner S.Madhavan who also belongs to BackwardCommunity, obtained 952.27 marks and stood at 360th rank. Therefore,in respect of the above candidates it cannot be said that by scalingsystem they were affected, as they were originally far below in thezone of selection in their respective reserve categories and there isno scope for them to contend that the scaling system caused prejudiceto them.POINT (3):23. In respect of other more important point viz., because ofirregularities in the answer papers, particularly the answer papersof selected candidates, the selection has to be rejected for thereason that they contained various marks which are against thenotification as well as the instructions given to the candidates, itis relevant to state the following factual aspects before going intothe merits of the same.23(a). In the instructions to candidates appearing forcompetitive examinations issued by the TNPSC, in clause No.9, it isstated as follows:"9. Candidates are required to provide themselves withtheir own pens, ink, blotting paper and instrument boxes.They are permitted to use only Fountain pen, steel pen andball point pen using blue or black or blue black inks only.xxxxx"23(b). In clause 10 of the instructions it is stated that thecandidates shall write answers either in English or in Tamil andshould not answer partly in English or partly in Tamil except incases of explanation and abbreviations. It is also stated that theanswer books of the candidates who write partly in English and partlyin Tamil will be invalidated. Clause 11 of the instructions states asfollows:"11. Candidates should write their answers on both thepages of the answer books supplied to them.The register numbers should be written only on thefront page of the first sheet of the main answer book in thespace provided for that purpose. They should not writetheir Register number in the additional answer books, graphsheets, maps or in the journal sheets supplied to them twomarks from the total marks will be deducted for violation ofthis instruction.The lower part of the left hand pages or if necessary apage or pages of the answer book may be used for any rough https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ work. The rough work should be crossed through afterwards."23(c). Clause 14 which prohibits the candidates from writing theregister number in any other places, states as follows:"14. Candidates should not write the register numberanywhere except in the space provided for it. They shouldnot write their names or initials anywhere. While answeringorder, judgemnt or letter writing questions they should useonly the names and addresses given in the question orgeneral instructions at the top of the question paper Twomarks will be deducted for violation of this instruction.Candidates should not write any irrelevant orimpertinent remarks of any appeal or any marks or irrelevantmatter including an appeal to the Examiner for higher marks.The answer books of the candidates who violate thisinstruction will be invalidated." 23(d). Clause 15 which is relevant is as follows:"15. Candidate should give the correct numbers of thequestion or sub-division in their answers. If they fail toindicate the correct question number or sub-division of aquestion or if they give the question number in correctlythey are, liable to lose marks.23(e). Clause 22 which is also relevant is as follows:"22. The application of the candidate who violates anyone or more of these instructions or instructions printed onthe main answer book or in the memorandum of admission, willbe rejected and or his answer books will be invalidated andor he/she will be debarred for such period as the Commissionconsiders fit."23(f). In addition to the above said instructions which arecirculated to each of the candidates, certain instructions are givenalong with hall tickets in the form of notes which are as follows:"Notes:1. The candidates should bring with him/heridentification Certificate along with the memorandum ofadmission (Hall Ticket) to the examination hall and affixhis/her Signature on the backside of the identificationcertificate on each day of the examination. Theidentification certificate should be returned to theinvigilator at the end of the last day of the examination.2. The candidate's application has been admittedprovisionally subject to verification of the veracity of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ claims in the application in regard to age, educationalqualification, community, etc. If the information furnishedby him/her is found to be not correct his/her applicationwill be liable for rejection ..3. Question papers other than language papers will beset both in Tamil and in English except the subjects viz.,Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science,Anthropology, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering,Forestry, Geology, Management, Mechanical Engineering andMedical Science for which the question papers will be set inEnglish only. The candidates will have the option to answerall the question papers either in Tamil or in English but nopartly in English and partly in Tamil. Any of the answerbooks written partly in English and Partly in Tamil will beinvalidated. However, the candidates are allowed to specifythe technical words wherever necessary in either of thelanguages. The language papers should be answered in therespective languages.4. Question papers other than language papers will beset both in Tamil and English except in subjects where themedium of instruction is normally English.5. The candidates should not use colour pens, sketchpens, pencils except those permitted in the instructionsetc. to candidates for any purpose including drawing,underlining and high lighting. They should not write theirRegister numbers anywhere (including additional answerbooks) except in the place provided at the top of the frontpage of the main answer book.6. Pagers and cellular phones are not allowed insidethe examination hall.7. Candidates are not allowed to change the optionalsubjects chosen in his/her application.8. Candidates are allowed the use of battery operatedpocket calculator for answering papers of essay type wherenecessary but they are strictly prohibited from using themfor answering the papers of objective type questions."23(g). A combined reading of the said instructions along withthe notes annexed to the hall tickets makes it clear that clause 5 ofthe notes, which states,'the candidates should not use colour pens, sketch pens,pencils, except those permitted in the instructions, etc.to candidates for any purpose including drawing,underlining and highlighting'is not actually forming part of the instructions to candidatescirculated earlier, but it was given to the candidates at the time ofappearing for written examinations. In the instructions to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ candidates, except stating in clause No.9 that the candidates shouldthemselves provide with their own pens, ink, blotting papers andinstrument box and that they are permitted to use only fountain pen,steel pen and ball point pen using blue or blue-black inks only,there are no other indications about the use of pencils. In case thecandidates fail to indicate correct question number or sub-divisionof the question or if he gives incorrect question number, it isstated that they will lose marks as per clause 15 of theinstructions. Therefore, there is no difficulty to conclude that thenotes annexed to the hall ticket particularly, clause 5 can only beconstrued to have been included in order to avoid any unwantedindications to the examiners at the time of valuing the answer books.23(h). In fact, in clause 14 of the instructions to candidates,it is made clear that if any irrelevant or impertinent marks orappeals are made to the examiners, the answer books would beinvalidated. In the absence of any prohibition against the using ofordinary pencil, it cannot be said that the use of pencil for thepurpose of drawing or indicating any maps or tables can be construedto be prohibited or to have the effect of invalidating the answerpapers. On the other hand, clause 5 of the notes which is intendedagainst giving unwanted indications to the examiners can only be readto mean that it prohibits colour pens, sketch pens and colourpencils. In such view of the matter, the contention of therespondent/TNPSC in the counter affidavit that the clause 5 of thenotes in respect of use of pens and pencils should be read as dealingwith colour pens and colour pencils, certainly deserves merit andsuch view cannot be held to be alien or antithesis to the veryconcept of permitting pens or pencils in the written examinations.Therefore, the contention that merely because the clause 5 of thenotes to the candidates given along with the hall ticket only statesabout 'colour pens and pencils' and it does not specifically have theword 'colour' prefixed to the word 'pencils', and therefore use ofpencils would invalidate the answer papers is not a correctinterpretation, and in my considered view, it should be interpretedthat the clause prohibits the use of colour pens and colour pencilsand sketch pens. 24. It is in this background, we have to refer to the report ofthe second advocate Commissioner. Since in the writ petitions thechallenge is in respect of ultimate selection of 91 candidates, thelearned advocate Commissioner was directed to go through the answerpapers of 91 selected candidates and accordingly, he perused 637answer books. In his report, the learned advocate Commissioner hasstated that the candidate with register No.519920 has written certainwords such as, 'jpUg;g[f' which means ' please turn over (PTO)'.It is also stated by the learned advocate Commissioner that the word'PTO' has also been written. It is seen that the said candidate hasmade a symbol of 'half moon, cross, Ohm'. The said candidate has also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ written answers in blue ink in one paper, Geography-I, it wasunderlined in black. In one paper, General studies-I, the saidcandidate has written the question number wrongly and thereafteraltered the same. In the paper, History-I, the first part was writtenand subsequently cancelled. The word, ' jpUg;g[f' or 'PTO' found inthe end of each paper cannot be said to be irrelevant or an appealmade to the Examiner, by construing clause 14 of the instructions tocandidates. 25. Likewise, under clause 15 of the instructions to candidatesit is only said that if correct question number is not written andincorrect number is written, the candidate will lose the mark and itdoes not invalidate the entire answer papers. In one of the papers,the said candidate as stated above has originally written the wrongquestion number and subsequently he has altered it. It can never besaid to be any indication to the examiners and it is only a mistakecorrected subsequently in respect of question number and the samecannot come under clause 15 of the instructions to the candidates.That apart, in respect of the violation about mentioning symbolsviz., 'cross, Ohm, half moon', I am of the view, by applying clause14, the same cannot be construed to be irrelevant marking inasmuch asthe candidate has put only the symbols of all religions and the samecannot be said to be either irrelevant or impertinent marking whichis likely to appeal the examiners. The only other defect as seen inthe advocate Commissioner's report is that the said candidate haswritten in blue ink and underlined in black ink. It is also clearthat this candidate has not used colour pencil or any other colourpen. In such circumstances, it is not possible to accept thecontention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there areviolations of instructions to candidates in respect of the saidregister number and on that ground, the answer scripts ought to havebeen invalidated. 26. The learned advocate Commissioner has indicated that inrespect of one register No.502369, in the answer papers for GeneralStudies-I, he has left one of the pages as blank and written theword, 'mani' and one page has been struck off by the candidate and in some of the papers, he has used pencil. I do not think that thereis any gross violation in the said paper. 27. Again, in respect of register No.509082, it is stated thatthe candidate has left the first page blank and he has written inblue ink and underlined in black ink. As it is stated earlier, inthe absence of any bar against using pencil, it cannot be said thatin respect of the said answer paper, the candidate has committedgross violation of the instructions to candidates. In respect of oneother candidate with register No.501827, it is stated that a mark ' 'was found in the answer sheet and again in Mechanical Engineering https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ papers also, at the end of the papers the mark ' ' is found. Again,I do not think that it can be termed as impertinent or irrelevantmark so as to attract the examiner. 28. On a consolidated and overall reading of the advocateCommissioner's reports, especially with reference to the paper-wisereport that was given in annexure-II, it is clear that in almost allpapers in respect of above said candidates, there was no use of 2colour pencils or no name of candidate was written or nomarking/margin note was made. In respect of the markings which havebeen made by him which I have dealt with earlier, it is found that insome cases, pencils were used and in some of the papers especially inGeneral Studies and General Tamil papers, two colours were used thatis, writing was made in blue or black ink pens and underlining wasmade with blue or black ink. It is seen that in few cases, thecandidates have written wrong question number first and thereafter,struck it off and written the correct question number. For thereasons I have stated earlier, there is no prohibition for the use ofpencil. The instructions to candidates and the notes annexed to thehall ticket should be construed to mean that they restrict againstthe use of colour pencils and any such marking must be treated asimpertinent or irrelevant, made with a view to attract the examinerwhile valuation and applying the said principle on the facts of thecase, based on the exhaustive report submitted by the learnedadvocate-Commissioner, I do not see any illegality which would tendto make the entire valuation untenable. The use of 'I' is common forthe purpose of striking off a line or a page or a paragraph and thatcannot be stated to be revealing the identity of the candidate.29. In Krishan Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and others[(1994) 4 SCC 165] it was found on facts that the selection was withdishonest intention for undue advantage and it was a fraud played bythe selection authorities. In fact, the Supreme Court has found thatit was a systematic fraud and even a plea of destruction of recordswas made. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court while settingaside the entire selection, held as follows:"19. It is highly regrettable that the holders of publicoffices both big and small have forgotten that the officesentrusted to them are sacred trusts. Such offices are meantfor use and not abuse. From a Minister to a menial everyonehas been dishonest to gain undue advantages. The wholeexamination and the interview have turned out to be farcicalexhibiting base character of those who have been responsiblefor this sordid episode. It shocks our conscience to comeacross such a systematic fraud. It is somewhat surprisingthe High Court should have taken the path of leastresistance stating, in view of the destruction of records, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that it was helpless. It should have helped itself. Law isnot that powerless.20. In the above circumstances, what are we to do? Theonly proper course open to us is to set aside the entireselection. The plea was made that innocent candidatesshould not be penalized for the misdeeds of others. We areunable to accept this argument. When the entire selectionis stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit,individual innocence has no place as "fraud unravelseverything". To put it in other words, the entire selectionis arbitrary. It is that which is faulted and not theindividual candidates. Accordingly, we hereby set aside theselection of Taxation Inspectors."30. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, which Ihave enumerated above, especially after taking note of the report ofthe advocate-Commissioner, it is seen that this is not a case offavouritism, nepotism or corruption and it is a case whereinstructions are stated to have been violated. As far as some ofthe violations of instructions which are in fact found on the factsof the case, there is no reason to decide that those violations hadthe tendency of giving any improper or impertinent indications tothe examiners.31. In Dr.M.Vennila v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission rep.By Deputy Secretary, Chennai and others (2006 (3) MLJ 376), theDivision Bench of this Court consisting of P.Sathasivam,J. (as hethen was) and J.A.K.Sampathkumar,J., was dealing with the effect ofcontents of the prospectus on a candidate and held that the same arebinding. If the prospectus makes it clear that the candidate shouldmake a declaration by signature and if such signature is not made, itwas held that such a mistake cannot be condoned and there is noquestion of any modification or relaxation of such conditions bythis Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. The Division Bench after exhaustivelydiscussing about various judgments on the issue especially relatingto the legal effect of the contents of prospectus, has ultimatelyheld as follows:"21. ...... It is clear from the above discussion thatit is imperative for either a candidate or a tenderer or aperson concerned to furnish full information as required inorder to verify the same by the authority concerned. In thecase on hand though particulars have been furnished aspointed out earlier, in the absence of proper authenticationby the persons concerned by affixing their signatures, theirapplications are liable to be rejected." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

32. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Board ofSecondary Education vs. Ms.Vineeta Mahajan and another (AIR 1994 SC733), which relates to a case of alleged use of unfair means, theSupreme Court has held that when there is no distinction between malafide and bona fide possession of the incriminating material bycandidate, candidate found in possession of such papers relevant tosuch examination which was written on the said day, inference can bedrawn as if the materials were used for unfair means. It hasfurther held that the allegation that the candidate has not actuallyused the incriminating papers, is not relevant. The supreme Courthas held as follows:"5. We do not agree with the reasoning of the HighCourt. The High Court fell into patent error in reading arebuttable presumption in the language of the rule. TheRule clearly defines "the use of unfair means at theexamination" and lays down in simple language that acandidate having in possession, papers relevant to theexamination in the paper concerned, shall be deemed to haveused unfair means at the examination. The sine qua non,for the misconduct under the rule, is the recovery of theincriminating material from the possession of thecandidate. Once the candidate is found to be in possessionof papers relevant to the examination, the requirement ofthe Rule is satisfied and there is no escape from theconclusion that the candidate has used unfair means at theexamination. The Rule does not make any distinctionbetween bona fide or mala fide possession of theincriminating material. The High Court reasoning, that thecandidate having not used the material – in spite of theopportunity available to her – the possession alone wouldnot attract the provisions of the Rule, in our view, is notborne out from the plain language of the Rule. Maybe,because of strict vigilance in the examination hall thecandidate was not in a position to take out the papers fromthe pencil box and use the same. He very fact that shetook the papers relevant to the examination in the paperconcerned and was found to be in possession of the same bythe invigilator in the examination hall is sufficient toprove the charge of using unfair means by her in theexamination under the Rule."33. The said judgment which relates to the use of unfair meanshas no application to the case on hand since no candidate is statedto have been involved in unfair means for the purpose of obtainingunjust benefit in the written examinations. The allegations are thatin the papers as found to be against the instructions by the learnedadvocate Commissioner, certain marks were used and different inks https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ were used and underlining was made and pencil was used. In theabsence of any concrete material to show that the stray instances ofusing pencils and markings as stated above had the tendency ofinfluencing the examiners or giving room to say that they were themeans for identifying the candidates for the purpose of unjustbenefit, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that the entire selection process shouldbe set aside. It is also relevant to point out that the selectionprocess in respect of appointment for the year 2000-01 having beencommenced much earlier viz., in the year 2004 and in the absence ofvery grave situation against the said selection process, it isimproper for this Court at this later point of time to interfere withthe selection process. Therefore, there is no difficulty to concludethat the writ petitioners have failed in proving all the pointsraised by them. 34. Now, turning to the relief to be given to the twopetitioners viz., A.B.Natarajan in W.P.No.30885 of 2004 andS.Madhavan in W.P.No.17969 of 2004, even on that score, they have tofail for the reason that the marks obtained by the selectedcandidates in the respective categories and the marks obtained by thesaid petitioners are nowhere near and consequently, the petitionersare not in the zone of consideration at all and therefore, this Courtis unable to give any relief to the petitioners by way of directionto the TNPSC to consider their case for appointment. It is true thatone of the petitioners viz., A.B.Natarajan got selected in thepreliminary examinations and main written examinations and he wascalled for oral tests and he also secured 150 marks in the oraltests. Nevertheless, as stated by the learned counsel appearing forthe respondent/ TNPSC, the last candidate selected in the category ofMBC viz., T.Jeyaraman scored 1239.57 marks and stood in 76th positionin the overall ranking, while the petitioner A.B.Natarajan, evenafter applying scaling system only obtained 1195.23 marks with 125rank. Likewise, in respect of S.Madhavan who was not even called fororal tests and not selected in the second stage of writtenexaminations got the total marks of 952.27 after applying the scalingsystem while he scored 951.50 raw marks. He stood in 360th rank. Inthe BC category to which he belongs, the last person selected withserial No.175 got 1032.94 marks. Therefore, the petitionerS.Madhavan is nowhere near the zone of consideration in respect ofselection for that year. It is therefore not possible to givedirection to the TNPSC to consider the said petitioners forappointment.35. However, when it is stated by the respondent/TNPSC that atleast 48 answer papers of the candidates who have violated theinstructions have been invalidated on the basis that they have usedextensively the colour pens, sketch pens and colour pencils in orderto identify them to the examiners, especially in the circumstances https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the learned advocate-Commissioner has found that some markswhich are not expected to be made in the answer papers have beenmade, the respondent/TNPSC should have taken care to prevent such useof signs even though the same may not be termed as irrelevant.Nevertheless, the TNPSC being the constitutional functionary,entrusted with the avowed object of selecting candidates for publicservice ought to be more careful because, it is those candidatesselected by the TNPSC who are going to be the valuable officers inthe governance of the State. Certainly, even a minor fault on thepart of the TNPSC can have adverse repercussion on the governance ofthe State in future. The report of the learned advocate-Commissionermakes it clear that at least in few number of cases the answer paperswere not in accordance with the instructions given and in spite ofthe same, the TNPSC has taken its own stand that such markings formedno basis for attracting the examiners. 36. Needless to state that the TNPSC should be very strict inimplementing the instructions given to the candidates since the lawis well settled that the instructions given by the authorities inrespect of examinations and selection process including the one givenin the prospectus are not only binding on both the parties, but theyare the basis for the selection process and certainly it is not opento one of the parties to turn around and construe the words in theprospectus in a different manner. 37. It is also found that the two petitioners, A.B.Natarajan andS.Madhavan have by this time crossed the age limit in participatingthe competitive examinations, since the matter has been pending inthis Court for nearly five years. Taking note of the same, it is forthe TNPSC to give one more opportunity to the said petitioners toappear for next competitive examinations to be held for Group I bygiving necessary relaxation in respect of age, if so desired by thesaid candidates and such request for relaxation, if made, should befavourably considered by the TNPSC to enable them to participate inthe examinations once again. 38. It is not possible to take into consideration the contentionof the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.482 of 2005 thatpresumption should be drawn that the examinations have been done inimproper manner which requires investigation by an authority like,CBI. In the absence of any relevant material and prima facie case,it is not possible to grant such a relief. Hence, the writ petitionin W.P.No.482 of 2005 filed by the same candidate for the purpose ofinvestigation and to set aside the selection cannot considered. 39. In such view of the matter, all the writ petitions aredismissed, however, with direction to the TNPSC to consider the caseof the petitioners in W.P.No.30885 of 2004 and W.P.No.17969 of 2004viz., A.B.Natarajan and S.Madhavan, if they so desire, to permit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ them to participate in the next Group I examinations to be conductedby the TNPSC giving necessary relaxation of age limit. No costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarkhTo1. The Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Government Estate Anna Salai Chennai 600 002.2. The Secretary to Govt. State of Tamil Nadu Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department Fort St.George Chennai 9.3. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.4. The Director Central Bureau of Investigation /Special Police Establishment CGO Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi.2 ccs To Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Advocate, SR.Nos.30179, 301782 ccs To Mr.Manikandan Vathan Chettiyar, Advocate, SR.300162 ccs To Mr.S.Umapathy, Advocate, SR.30015 P.D.Common Order in W.P.Nos.30885,17969, 19851 of 2004 and 482 of 2005 GV(CO)SRA(17/7/2009)