Madrasdated High Court · 2008

M.Dharmarajan ..Petitioner in WP 18883/2008V.Karthikeyan ..Petitioner in WP 18884/2008P.Rajkumar ..Petitioner in WP 18885/2008V.Arivukannan ..Petitioner in WP 18886/2008R.L.Arun Prasad ..Petitioner in WP 18887/2008V.Balasubramanian ..Petitioner in WP 18888/2008D.Ganesh Babu ..Petitioner in WP 18889/2008R.Kaipana ..Petitioner in WP 18890/2008Jamuna.G. ..Petitioner in WP 18948/2008K.Neppolean ..Petitioner in WP 18949/2008Sri Nithya Mahaprabhu ..Petitioner in WP 18950/2008S.Maheshwaran ..Petitioner in WP 18951/2008M.Dhandapany ..Petitioner in WP 18952/2008M.Backia Nathan ..Petitioner in WP 18953/2008B.Saranya ..Petitioner in WP 18955/2008P.Mahalakshmi ..Petitioner in WP 19121/2008N.Amutha Sujatha ..Petitioner in WP 19122/2008S.Subramanian ..Petitioner in WP 19123/2008K.Emayavaramban ..Petitioner in WP 19124/2008P.Ponnuchamy ..Petitioner in WP 19125/2008M.Selvaraj ..Petitioner in WP 19134/2008G.Elamurugu ..Petitioner in WP 19135/2008K.Mayavanthan ..Petitioner in WP 19136/2008S.Jegan ..Petitioner in WP 19137/2008R.Satheesh Kumar ..Petitioner in WP 19138/2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ G.Sumathi ..Petitioner in WP 19146/2008D.Viswanthan ..Petitioner in WP 19147/2008P.Kalidoss ..Petitioner in WP 19148/2008P.Agoramurthy ..Petitioner in WP 19149/2008J.N.Bargavi ..Petitioner in WP 19150/2008K.Jeyakumar ..Petitioner in WP 19151/2008M.Senthiappan ..Petitioner in WP 19152/2008B.Geetha..Petitioner in WP 19171/2008Sumathi R...Petitioner in WP 19223/2008P.Senthil Kumar..Petitioner in WP 19224/2008S.Sivarajavel..Petitioner in WP 19225/2008P.Anbazhahan..Petitioner in WP 19226/2008J.Ganesh Kumar ..Petitioner in WP 19227/2008S.Janaki Raman..Petitioner in WP 19243/2008R.Nagendran..Petitioner in WP 19244/2008K.Jayakumar ..Petitioner in WP 19245/2008K.Vijayakumar..Petitioner in WP 19246/2008B.Manikandan..Petitioner in WP 19247/2008S.Krishnakumar..Petitioner in WP 19248/2008P.Sivakumar..Petitioner in WP 19254/2008A.Elaiyaraja..Petitioner in WP 19255/2008Saravanakumar Chowdry.S ..Petitioner in WP 19256/2008A.Padmashini..Petitioner in WP 19257/2008K.Ganesan..Petitioner in WP 19258/2008S.Thangadurai..Petitioner in WP 19259/2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ B.Sathish Kumar..Petitioner in WP 19260/2008C.Alwyn Deva Mano..Petitioner in WP 19264/2008S.Balaji..Petitioner in WP 19265/2008A.Senthil Kumaran..Petitioner in WP 19266/2008R.Sheela Rani ..Petitioner in WP 18974/2008M.Chandrasekar ..Petitioner in WP 19288/2008K.Senthil Kumar ..Petitioner in WP 19305/2008P.Nithya ..Petitioner in WP 19306/2008P.Senthil Kumar ..Petitioner in WP 19307/2008-vs-The Secretary,Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,Chennai-600002...Respondent in all the PetitionsPRAYER:-Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to issue a writs of mandamus directing the respondent to treat the petitioner as having passedthe Group-I Services Preliminary examination 2006-2007 conductedby the respondents on 23.12.2007 by rectifying the wrong keyanswers assigned to questions in B series numbers 118, 133, 140,143, 152 and 167 in the said examinations .(W.P.NO.18714 of 2008)directing the respondent to re evaluate the petitionersanswer sheet by rectifying the wrong key answers assigned to someof the questions in the Group I preliminary examination 2006-2007conducted by the respondent on 23.12.2007 and to hold thepetitioner as having passed the said examination, thereon to beallowed to write the Group I main examination scheduled on16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008 .((W.P.19134, to 19138, of 2008, 19146, to19152 of 2008, 19223 to 19227 of 2008, 19243 to 19248 of 2008 ,19254 to 19260 of 2008, 19264 and 19265 of 2008, 18780/2008,W.P.No.18840 to 18842 of 2008, W.P.NO.18866 to 18871 of 2008 ,18911 to 18914/2008, 18881 to 18885/2008, 18886 to 18890/08,19121 to 19125/08, 19288 of 2008, 19305 to 19307/2008) directing the Respondent to treat the petitioner as havingpassed the group I Services Preliminary Examination 2006-2007conducted by the respondent on 23.12.07 by rectifying the wrongkey answers assigned to Question Nos. 118, 133, 140, 143, 152 &167 in the said examination. (W.P.No.19171 of 2008, 18974/2008) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directing the respondent to re evaluate the petitionersanswer sheet by rectifying the wrong key answers assigned to someof the questions in the Gruop I preliminary examination 2006-2007conducted by the respondent on 23.12.2007 and to hold thepetitioner as having passed the said examination, thereon to beallowed to write the Group I main examination scheduled on16.8.2008.(W.P.No.19266 of 2008 , 18839/08, 18955/2008) to direct the respondent to add the marks allotted to thequestions for which wrong answers were given in the examinationpaper and permit the petitioner to attend the main examinationfixed on 16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008 for the posts included in GroupI services 2006-2007 to be conducted by the Tamilnadu PublicService Commission (W.P.No.18948 to 18953 /2008)For petitioner in :Mr.S.Silambannan, S.C., W.P.No.18714/2008 for Mr.N.Umapathi.For petitioner in :Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar forW.P.No.18780/2008 M/s.Row and Reddy.For Petitioners in:Mr.C.SivakumarW.P.Nos.18839 to 18842/2008& 18911 to 18914 /2008For Petitioners in:Mr.G.R.Prasad forW.P.Nos.18866 to 18871/2008 Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveenkumar& 19121 to 19125/2008& 19134 to 19138/2008& 19223 to 19227/2008& 19243 to 19248/2008& 19254 to 19260/2008For Petitioners in:Mr.A.Mohamed IsmailW.P.Nos.18881 to 18885/2008& 18886 to 18890/2008For Petitioners in:Mr.S.UdayakumarW.P.Nos.18948 to 18952/2008For Petitioner in :Ms.E.BalasharmilaW.P.No.18953/2008For Petitioner in :M/s.G.Vijay Anand W.P.No.18955/2008AssociatesFor Petitioner in:Mr.R.Y.George WilliamsW.P.No.18974/2008For Petitioners in:Mr.V.P.Rajendran https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.Nos.19146 to 19150/2008& 19151 & 19152/2008& 19305 to 19307/2008For Petitioner in:Mr.M.RajasekarW.P.No.19171/2008For Petitioners in:Mr.N.VelmuruganW.P.Nos.19264 to 19266/2008For Petitioner in:Ms.B.JayanthiW.P.No.19288/2008For Respondent in:Mr.V.T.Gopalan, S.C.,all the W.Ps. For M/s.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi for T.N.P.S.C.C O M M O N O R D E RBy consent of all the parties, the above writ petitions havebeen taken up for final disposal.2. Since the issue involved in all the cases are one and thesame, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.3. The issue involved in all these writ petitions arerelating to the preliminary examination conducted by the TamilNadu Public Service Commission for Group I Services in the year2006-2007 on 23.12.2007. It is seen that the respondent, TamilNadu Public Service Commission, has issued a Notification on01.08.2007 for commencing selection process for Group I Services.It is not in dispute that the present Notification has been issuedin respect of the selection process for Group I Services after aperiod of 7 years. The respondent Service Commission has notified178 posts. As per the Notification, the process of selection forGroup I Services consists of 3 stages. The 1st stage is about thepreliminary examination, which was conducted on 23.12.2007. Thesaid preliminary examination is stated to be a screening testconsisted of a single paper in General Knowledge of DegreeStandard with 200 questions, which are objective in nature. Themaximum marks being 300 and the duration of examination, which wasconducted, was 3 hours. The 2nd stage is the main examination.After the screening test conducted by way of preliminaryexamination, the Service Commission selects candidates on thebasis of 1:10 ratio having regard to the rule of reservation ofappointments and the selected candidates are sent for the finalwritten examination, which are to be conducted on 16.08.2008 and17.08.2008 in various centres at Chennai. The said mainexamination is a proper written examination consisting of two https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ papers, viz., General Studies Paper-I and General Studies Paper-II, each of 300 maximum marks with 3 hours duration. The 3rd stageis that after the selection process made in the writtenexamination is over, the selected candidates are called for oralinterview.4. These writ petitions are concerned about the manner withwhich the preliminary examination was conducted by the Tamil NaduService Commission on 23.12.2007. These writ petitioners, whohave participated in the preliminary examination on 23.12.2007,have raised some doubts about either the validity of thequestions, which are prepared by the Service Commission, or aboutthe correctness of the key answers stated to have been prepared bythe Service Commission and these discrepancies, according to thepetitioners, have come to limelight only after the declaration ofresults on 25.04.2008, by way of group discussion among thepetitioners and on the basis of self-evaluation. Normally, thisCourt would not entertain such writ petitions against theexaminations conducted by a Constitutional Authority like TamilNadu Public Service Commission, which is performing itsconstitutional function, but considering the genuineness of someof the grievances raised by the petitioners as well as somecandidates, this Court has taken a definite stand that thesuspicion in the minds of the candidates, who have taken part inthe preliminary examination, that there has been somediscrepancies is well founded.5. It is also relevant to point out at this stage that afterthe preliminary examination was over, nearly 31 candidates, whohave participated in the examinations, have raised some objectionsin the light of Clause 42 of the instructions to the candidatesissued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.6. The said Clause 42 of the instructions to the candidates,which confers certain rights on the participants in thepreliminary examination to point out any defects in the questionbooklets to the Service Commission so as to enable the ServiceCommission to take proper steps, is as follows:-"Candidates are advised to write to theController of Examinations on items orquestion, the candidate considers defectivein the Question Booklet within three daysfrom the date of examination. In suchrepresentations, Register Number, Name andaddress of the candidate, Question Number,Question Booklet Series etc. shouldinvariably be quoted. Any representationreceived after three days from the date ofexamination or without any of the requiredparticulars will receive no attention." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ It is true that as per the said clause, the participants in thepreliminary examination have right to point out the mistakes ordefects, which are to be exercised within 3 days from the date ofexaminations. It is stated that the above said 31 candidates, whohave taken part in the preliminary examination, have, in fact,made representations within the stipulated time bringing out someof the defects in the question papers. It is also not in disputethat no one of the 31 candidates, who have raised objections, haveapproached this Court. A batch of students, who have taken thepreliminary examination on 23.12.2007 and who have not made anyrepresentations in conformity with Clause 42 of the Notification,have approached this Court by filing writ petitions in the sameterms as the present writ petitioners. Those writ petitions cameto be disposed of on 31.07.2008. While disposing of the said writpetitions, this Court has taken a stand that the technical rulethat objection should be filed within a period of 3 days, asstipulated under Clause 42 of the Instructions to the Candidates,should not stand in the way of rendering substantial justice incases, where the participants in the preliminary examination wereable to bring out some of the patent errors either in theexamination or in the manner of self-valuation. In that view ofthe matter, this Court has passed final orders permitting thepetitioners therein to appear for final examinations, which are tobe conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission on16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008 with direction to the petitionerstherein to make proper representations clarifying that on suchrepresentations, it is for the Service Commission to refer thesame to Experts and take a final decision. The following were thedirections issued by this Court while disposing of the batch ofwrit petitions in W.P.No.12127 of 2008 batch dated 31.07.2008:-"18.In the light of the abovefindings and having regard to the judgmentscited supra, I am inclined to pass thefollowing orders:(i)The petitioners herein are directedto submit representation pointing out thenumber of questions where the questions arenot correctly asked, more number of answersare found correct as per leading text booksand whether key answer to the questions arecorrectly given on or before 7.8.2008.(ii)On receiving the saidrepresentations the respondent/TNPSC isdirected to place the disputedquestions/answers before the Expert Committeeto be constituted by it for verification asto whether the questions pointed out arecorrect, if more than one answer given in thechoice are correct and whether the keyanswers given to any question pointed out bythe petitioners are wrong. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii) On verifying the same, the ExpertCommittee is directed to award marks to suchof those petitioners who attempted the saidquestions and on that basis determine thefinal marks of the petitioners in thepreliminary examination.(iv)Since the above said exercise willtake some time and in view of fixation ofdate for the main written examination as16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008, the respondent/TNPSC is directed to permit the petitionersherein to write the main written examinationsalong with 1750 candidates, who are alreadyfound eligible to write main writtenexamination.(v)By following the above process, ifthe petitioners are getting the required cut-off marks prescribed for the respectivecategory, their final written examinationpapers shall be valued. If the petitionersare not getting the required cut-off marks,their final written examination papers neednot be valued.(vi)Since the preliminary examinationresults were published as early as on25.4.2008, and the main written examinationis to be held on 16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008, thebenefit of this order is restricted to thewrit petitioners herein, as no generaldirections could be issued at this belatedstage.All The writ petitions are orderedaccordingly. No costs. Connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed."While disposing of the said writ petitions with the above saiddirections, a restriction has been imposed by this Court statingthat the benefit of the directions should be made applicable andrestricted only to the writ petitioners therein and such directionshould not be treated as a general direction, since the learnedJudge felt that such general direction could not be given at abelated stage especially when the main written examination is tobe conducted on 16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008.7. However, the present writ petitions came to be filed afterthe disposal of the above said batch of writ petitions and areplaced before this Court for a decision. Before adverting to thevarious arguments advanced by the respective counsels includingMr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the TamilNadu Public Service Commission, it is relevant to refer to some ofthe passages in the counter affidavit filed by the Service https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Commission in the earlier batch of writ petitions stated above.This is relevant because in these batch of writ petitions, theService Commission has not filed any counter affidavit and it isanybody's knowledge that the Service Commission cannot take anystand other than what was already taken by them in the counteraffidavit. In the counter affidavit filed in the batch of cases,while the facts stated above in nutshell were not disputed, therespondent Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has very fairlystated in paragraph No.5 as follows:-"In this connection, it is submitted that theCommission has never failed to rectify anydiscrepancies whenever such discrepancies came tothe knowledge of the Commission. In the same way,for the present recruitment, it has come to theknowledge of the Commission about certaindiscrepancies in the key for some of the questions."In this connection, it is submitted that the Commission has neverfailed to rectify any discrepancies whenever such discrepanciescame to the knowledge of the Commission, but it has now came tothe knowledge of the Commission about the discrepancies in the keyfor some of the questions. The said stand taken by the respondentin the counter affidavit makes it clear that even though theService Commission has not so far released or disclosed the keyanswers, while exercising its Constitutional function, it hasfound some discrepancies in the key answers. Therefore, it is notnecessary for this Court to go into each and every one of thequestion even though the respective counsels have taken enormousefforts to bring to the notice of this Court about variousdiscrepancies. Suffice to mention some of those questions, whichare not only shocking and alarming to us, only as examples. Itis also relevant at this stage to point out that the questionshave been given both in English as well as in Tamil and it is alsonot in dispute that Tamil translation of English question is thesame and without any change.Question No.57, which is as follows:- The founder of the Newspaper "The Hindu" was (a) S.Subramania Iyer(b) Kasturi Ranga Iyengar(b) S.Satyamurthy(c) T.K.MadhavanAll the answers given are patently wrong. The founder of thenewspaper is G.Subramania Iyer, whose name is not finding place inany one of the 4 answers.Question No.130, which is as follows:-The Pallava rulers believed in(a) Jainism(b) Buddhism(c) Hinduism (d) ShaivismEven though the correct answer is (d) Shaivism, it is doubted bysome of the candidates that the Service Commission, in the keyanswer, has given it as Jainism. Of course, it is for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent Service Commission to check up as to the correctness ofthe said averment made by some of the petitioners.Question No.135, which is as follows:-The emergency provisions of the Constitution of India was borrowedfrom(a) Government of India Act, 1935(b)USSR(c) USA(d) Weimar Constitution of GermanyThe answer for this question could be Government of India Act,1935 as well as Weimar Constitution of Germany, as it is assertedby the Text Book of Constitution of India by D.D.Basu.Question No.137, which is as follows:-The final work of UPSC in recruitment process is(a) Selection(b) Appointment(c) Certification(d) PlacementA doubt has arisen as far as this question is concerned that whileUPSC has taken its final work as "selection process", theConstitution of India uses the word, "Certifies". Therefore,there are 2 correct answers, which can be construed distinctively.Question No.140, which is as follows:-In which year, for the first time was no-confidence motion movedin the Parliament?(a) 1960(b)1963(c) 1964(d)1967A question is raised as to the no-confidence motion against whichcharacter, whether it is for removal of Speaker or against theCouncil of Ministers, because there was a no-confident motionmoved in the Parliament for the removal of a Speaker in 1954 andthere was a no-confidence motion moved against the Council ofMinisters in 1963 and therefore, the technical validity of thisquestion is raised by a candidate based on the Literature on theConstitutional Government in India by the author, MV Pylee.Question No.169, which is as follows:-The Industrial Tribunals are consisted of person of the rank(a) Supreme Court Judge(b) Chief Justice of Supreme Court(c) High Court Judge(d) Sessions Court JudgeBy referring to a website of the Ministry of Labour andEmployment, the Government of India has stated that the PresidingOffice of Industrial Tribunal should have been either a DistrictJudge or an Additional District Judge for three years andalternatively, he should have held the post of Judge of a HighCourt. 8. These are only some of the instances, which are taken fromthe objections raised by few of the petitioners in theiraffidavits. There are many more instances, which are stated bythe petitioners, of course, which are relating to theprobabilities, suspicions and surmises and therefore, it is not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ necessary to extract those questions. But the fact remains thateven though it is stated by the Service Commission in its counteraffidavit in the previous batch of cases that there has been manydiscrepancies in the setting of question papers and there areobvious mistakes in the key answers also, about which, this Courtis not able to lay its hands, since the key answers have not beenplaced before this Court either in the previous batch or in thisbatch of cases.9. Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for theTamil Nadu Public Service Commission, has contended that as thelearned Single Judge of this Court, while disposing of the batchof writ petitions previously, in the ultimate paragraph held thatthe benefit of the said order should be restricted only to thewrit petitioners and it should not be treated as generaldirections, if this Court decides to extend the said benefitsgiven in the earlier batch, in fairness, it should be referred toa larger Bench. Since this question has been raised by a learnedSenior Counsel, as a matter of preliminary objection to thejurisdiction of this Court, it is necessary to deal with the saidcontention. 10. First of all, on a reading of the order of the learnedSingle Judge in the batch of writ petitions, it is crystal clearthat the learned Judge has come to a definite conclusion that therights given to the parties to exercise, as per the Notificationunder Clause 42, viz., within 3 days, which is technical, whichcannot stand in the right of rendering justice, considering theover all situations of the cases. A specific contention was putforth before this Court in the earlier batch that the students,who have written examinations based on the notifications issued bythe Service Commission, are bound by the Notification andtherefore, it is not open to the students to come back or actagainst the Notification and this Court should not permit such anattitude. While dealing with the said contention, the learnedJudge has elaborately dealt with the same by taking intoconsideration the various case laws, but ultimately decided thatin these matters, when once the malpractice has been revealed tolimelight, even to a limited extent, the ultimate goal of theCourt is to render substantial justice and the technicalitiesshould not stand in the way of rendering such substantial justice.This Court has taken note of the fact that the Tamil Nadu PublicService Commission is conducting these examinations after a longperiod of 7 years and therefore, any narrow meaning given to thevarious terms in the Notification would only destroy the veryconcept of rendering justice to the participants. In fact, thelearned Judge has also referred to the judgment of the SupremeCourt in Gurunanak Dev University -vs- Saumil Garg reported in2005 (13) SCC 749, wherein the Supreme Court has asserted in cleardefinite terms that the paper setters have legal duty to givecorrect key answers and in the event of the key answers having https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ found to be wrong, the same cannot be taken light by a Court and aconsequential order should be passed. The Supreme Court has heldin paragraph No.6 as follows:- "The questions posed must have only onecorrect answer out of the four options given.Likewise, there is responsibility on those, whofinalise the key answers. If none of theanswers is correct, it becomes their duty tosay that none of the answers is correct, sothat if any remedial action is to be taken, itshould be taken before the answers arevaluated. It is evident that on both theseaspects, there was serious lapse which resultedin litigation which is otherwise avoidable."11. The nature of care, which should be taken while preparingthe key answers, was again reaffirmed by the Supreme Court inManish Ujwal -vs- Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University reportedin (2005) 13 SCC 744 and that was the view taken by the SupremeCourt even much earlier in Kanpur University -vs- Samir Guptareported in AIR 1983 SC 1230.12. In fact, in a similar situation, when this Court hasfound that the key answers were wrong, a direction was given tothe University to revalue the answer papers for certain questionseven though under the Scheme of University, revaluation of answerpapers were not permitted. That was in D.Shylaja -vs- theSecretary to Government and others reported in 2004 WLR 639.Likewise, in G.Nanthini -vs- The Registrar, Anna University,Chennai-25, a Division Bench of this Court, in a batch of casesin W.A.No.2476 of 2004 etc. dated 02.08.2004, has again affirmedthat there can be only one key answer and approved the order ofthe Courts in doing such exercise and sometimes, in the interestof career of the students directing the award of mark for morethan one question. It was after exhaustively considering thelegal issue on the point of getting key answers and the manner ofsetting up the questions, the learned Judge has given the abovesaid directions in the said batch of cases. 13. I am in total agreement with the reasoning given by thelearned Judge in the batch of cases referred to above. Therefore,there is no question of this Court taking a different view fromthe one taken earlier. In such view of the matter, the questionof referring this issue to a larger Bench does not arise. Merelybecause in the previous batch of cases, the relief given wasrestricted to only those writ petitioners, it does not mean thatthe other Court exercising the same jurisdiction has no right tofollow the same or it cannot be said that when such right isexercised by a Court of equal jurisdiction, such Court will begoing against the order of the learned Single Judge merely becausethere was a restriction in the earlier batch of cases. There are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ many more reasons for this Court to grant relief to thepetitioners in this batch. First of all, there is absolutely nodistinction between the petitioners in the earlier batch, who havebeen granted relief and the present petitioners, as seen in thecircumstance that no one of these petitioners either in this batchor previous batch have made any representation pointing out thedefect in the answer papers or the question in conformity with theregulation 42 of the Notification issued by the Tamil Nadu PublicService Commission, viz., within 3 days from the date of writingof the preliminary examination. It is also relevant to note thatthe petitioners have taken up examinations believing that thequestion papers are correct and the Service Commission would havegiven the correct key answers. As correctly pointed out by manyof the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, it was onlyafter April 2008, when the results of the preliminary examinationwere published by the Service Commission, by seeing the marksgranted to the petitioners, they have entertained doubt about thegenuineness of the either questions or the key answers.Therefore, it was on the evaluation by the students themselves,which cannot be held to be either illegal or unlawful, they haveraised suspicion about the conduct of the examination. In thechart, which is to be followed in respect of the presentpetitioners and which I have produced below, an analysis of themarks obtained by the candidates belonging to various category ofsocial status would show that so many of the students were notable to come to the cut off point by one or two marks andtherefore, there is every justification for the petitioners toapproach this Court since their valuable right of gettingemployment is certainly affected, if it is ultimately found that amistake has crept in, in the process of selection by way ofexamination by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. It isalso relevant to point out at this stage that in fact, the orderof the learned Judge in the earlier batch has been given effect toby the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission itself, in the sense,that it is now admitted that pursuant to the directions given bythis Court, the petitioners in the previous batch of writpetitions are all permitted to appear for final examination to beconducted on 16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008. In such view of thematter, I do not see any reason in the contention of the learnedSenior Counsel that the petitions have to be referred to thelarger Bench. It is also not in dispute, as on today, that theorder passed by the learned Judge in the previous batch standsfinal, since the same has not been challenged, which is also notpossible due to the reason that admittedly the direction given bythe learned Judge has been given effect to by the ServiceCommission even by permitting the petitioners in the said batch toundergo the main examination. A perusal of the affidavits filedby the writ petitioners in this batch reveals the followingparticulars regarding the marks secured by the petitioners and therequired marks as per the details furnished by the ServiceCommission itself. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ published the details of cut off marks for various category ofstudents in respect of the preliminary examination conducted forGroup-I examination of the year 2006-2007, which are as follows:-CATEGORYMARKGENERAL TURN (GENERAL)210.00GENERAL TURN (WOMEN)195.00BACKWARD CLASSES (GENERAL)201.00BACKWARD CLASSES (WOMEN)187.50MOST BACKWARD CLASSES/DENOTIFIED COMMUNITIES(GENERAL)196.50MOST BACKWARD CLASSES/DENOTIFIED COMMUNITIES(WOMEN)180.00SCHEDULED CASTE (GENERAL)195.00SCHEDULED CASTE (WOMEN)178.50SCHEDULED TRIBE (GENERAL)156.00SCHEDULED TRIBE (WOMEN)---The following are the particulars about the present petitioners:-S.No.W.P.No.Name of thepetitionerSocialStatusCut offmarkMarksobtained1.18839/2008A.RameshS.C.195.00187.502.18840/2008P.SridharS.C. 195.00193.503.18841/2008S.Uma MaheswariMBC(W)180.00178.504.18842/2008C.Ravi ShankarMBC196.50193.505.18911/2008Veerapillai RameshBC(G)201.00192.006.18912/2008V.VelayuthamBC(G)201.00192.007.18913/2008R.VivekanandanMBC(G)196.50190.508.18914/2008S.RajaMBC(G)196.50195.009.18881/2008P.Adhavanj SeralBC(G)201.00195.0010.18882/2008B.S.Saravana KumarBC(G)201.00192.00 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.No.W.P.No.Name of thepetitionerSocialStatusCut offmarkMarksobtained11.18883/2008M.DharmarajanMBC(G)196.50190.5012.18884/2008V.KarthikeyanB.C.(G)201.00199.5013.18885/2008P.RajkuarBC(G)201.00198.0014.18886/2008V.ArivukkannanBC(G)201.00192.0015.18887/2008R.L.Arun PrasadBC(G)201.00195.0016.18888/2008R.L.Arun PrasadBC(G)201.00195.0017.18889/2008D.Ganesh BabuBC(G)201.00196.5018.18890/2008R.KalpanaBC(G)187.50186.0019.18953/2008M.PackianathanSC195.00192.0020.18955/2008B.SaranyaBC(W)187.50180.0021.18948/2008G.JamunaBC(W)187.50172.5022.18949/2008K.NepoleanMBC196.50190.5023.18950/2008Sri NithyaMahaprabhuMBC196.50184.5024.18951/2008S.MageshwaranMBC196.50195.0025.18952/2008M.DhandapaniBC201.00198.0026.18866/2008S.SrinivasanMBC196.50190.5027.18867/2008K.Ezhil RaniMBC(W)180.00175.0028.18868/2008M.S.Sathish KumarBC(G)201.00199.5029.18869/2008K.P.MadhavaJanarthananMBC(G)196.50186.00 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.No.W.P.No.Name of thepetitionerSocialStatusCut offmarkMarksobtained30.18870/2008R.MohanBC(G)201.00195.0031.18871/2008P.VadivelanMBC(G)196.50189.0032.19121/2008P.MahalakshmiSC(W)178.50175.5033.19122/2008N.Amudha SujathaMBC(W)180.00175.5034.19123/2008S.SubramanianMBC(G)196.50193.5035.19124/2008K.ImayavarambanMBC(G)196.50195.0036.19125/2008P.PonnuchamiSC195.00193.0037.19171/2008B.GeethaSC(W)178.50174.0038.19151/2008K.JayakumarMBC196.50189.0039.19152/2008M.SenthiappanBC(G)201.00195.0040.19223/2008R.SumathiMBC(W)180.00178.5041.19224/2008P.Senthil KumarMBC(G)196.50150.0042.19226/2008P.AnbazhaganSC(G)195.00180.0043.19227/2008J.Ganesh KumarBC201.00196.5044.19146/2008G.SumathiSC(W)178.50177.0045.19147/2008D.ViswanathanSC(G)195.00189.0046.19148/2008P.KalidassBC(G)201.00193.5047.19149/2008P.AgoramoorthyMBC(G)196.50195.0048.19150/2008J.N.BhargaviFC207.00189.00 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.No.W.P.No.Name of thepetitionerSocialStatusCut offmarkMarksobtained49.19134/2008M.SelvarajSC(G)195.00193.5050.19135/2008G.ElamuruganBC(G)201.00196.5051.19136/2008K.MayavanathanBC(G)201.00199.5052.19137/2008S.JeganMBC(G)196.50195.0053.19138/2008R.Sathish KumarBC(G)201.00196.5054.19243/2008S.JanakiramanSC(G)195.00187.5055.19244/2008R.NagendranMBC(G)196.50192.0056.19245/2008K.JayakumarMBC(G)196.50189.0057.19246/2008K.VijayakumarBC(G)201.00195.0058.19247/2008B.ManikandanBC(G)201.00193.5059.19248/2008S.Krishna KumarBC(G)201.00195.0060.18714/2008John KennedyBC(G)201.00199.5061.18780/2008K.DhakshnamurthyBC(G)201.00198.0062.19306/2008P.NithyaBC(W)187.00180.0063.19307/2008P.Senthil KumarBC(G)201.00196.5064.19306/2008K.Senthil KumarSC(G)195.00183.0065.19225/2008S.SivarajvelMBC(G)196.50193.0066.19288/2008M.ChandrasekarOC210.00204.0067.18974/2008R.Sheela RaniSC(W)178.50175.00 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ S.No.W.P.No.Name of thepetitionerSocialStatusCut offmarkMarksobtained68.19264/2008C.Alwyn Deva ManoBC(G)201.00198.0069.19265/2008S.BalajiBC(G)201.00198.0070.19266/2008A.Senthil KumarMBC(G)196.50190.5071.19254/2008P.SivakumarBC(G)201.00187.5072.19255/2008A.ElaiyarajaMBC(G)196.50172.5073.19256/2008S.Saravana KumarChoudryBC(W)201.00184.5074.19257/2008A.PadmashiniBC(W)201.00184.5075.19258/2008K.GanesanBC(G)201.00193.5076.19259/2008S.ThangaduraiSC(G)195.00178.5077.19260/2008B.Satish KumarSC(G)195.00193.5014. The respondent Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,being a Constitutional Authority, is constituted for the purposeof conducting examination for appointments to the services of theState as enshrined under Article 320(1) of the Constitution ofIndia. Article 41 of the Constitution of India included underChapter 4 of the Constitution as Directive Principles of StatePolicy confers right to work, to education and to publicassistance in certain cases, as follows:-"41.Right to work, to education and topublic assistance in certain cases:-The State shall, within the limits of itseconomic capacity and development, makeeffective provision for securing the right towork, to education and to public assistance incases of unemployment, old age, sickness anddisablement, and in other cases of undeservedwant."15. The above object of the said provisions of theConstitution is not only conferring right to work, but also theright to have assistance in cases of unemployment. The saidprovisions of the Constitution have been interpreted by theSupreme Court in more than one occasion as comparable to the right https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to live with dignity, as guaranteed under Article 21 of theConstitution of India, as one of the fundamental rights, as it wasobserved in Consumer Education and Research Centre -vs- Union ofIndia reported in AIR 1995 SC 922.16. The respondent Service Commission, performing theconstitutional function, is expected to be fair in its functions,since it certainly deals with the larger number of population,which has direct consequences to the problem of unemployment. Insuch circumstances, the terms of the counter affidavit filed bythe respondent in the previous batch of cases and also some of theconcrete instances of the discrepancies pointed out in thequestion papers and probabilised wrong key answers, which wouldhave been given by the Service Commission, makes it very clearthat the suspicion of these petitioners about the correctness ofvaluation is well founded. Therefore, it cannot be said as if thebenefits given by this Court in the batch of cases stated abovewere given merely on sympathetic ground. The respondent ServiceCommission, who appears to have taken some time in the earlierbatch of cases, have admittedly not produced even the key answersto the Court and even as on date, the said status stands. Thecontention of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, thatthe key answers are kept secretly since it is a very importantdocument, is again unfounded. When once evaluation of papers havebeen completed, there is no point in continuously holding that thekey answers are very secret. In my considered view, whileexercising the constitutional function under Article 320(1) of theConstitution of India, the Service Commission ought to haveproduced the key answers in fairness before this Court so as toenable this Court to come to a proper conclusion. In thesecircumstances, I am of the considered view that by following theearlier direction given by this Court in the batch of cases, ofcourse, with certain modifications, certainly no prejudice isgoing to be caused to the respondent Public Service Commission.On the other hand, all the materials placed before the Court bywhich there is absolutely no doubt that there has been somediscrepancies in the valuation process as well as the key answers,it is only by not giving benefits to these petitioners, greatprejudice will be caused certainly to the petitioners, sinceadmittedly, the Service Commission has proceeded to conductexamination process after a period of 7 years and these candidateshave already grown up in their age and if the benefits, to whichthey are entitled, is not conferred by this Court, at this pointof time, certainly they will lose their right to live with humandignity in this Country which is the goal of the Constitution ofIndia. By directing the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission topermit the petitioners to participate in the written finalexamination with a direction to verify the correctness orotherwise of the representations made by the petitioner in thelight of the facts stated above, the gross injustice, which arelikely to be caused to the petitioners, can be averted. At the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same time, I am of the considered view that it is not for thisCourt to find out the correctness or otherwise of variousquestions or answers, since the Courts are not experts especiallyin the circumstance that the Service Commission has beenconstituted as a body with various experts performingconstitutional functions and normally no suspicion is entertainedagainst the functions of the constitutional authorities. ThisCourt would have otherwise extended the benefits, which are to begiven to these petitioners, to the other candidates also, but thesame is restricted to these petitioners before this Court due tothe reason that such an exercise may result in grave prejudice tothe administration and such exercise may be unwieldy andunworkable.17. For the reasons stated, the above writ petitions standdisposed of with the following directions:-i.The respondent, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, shallpermit the petitioners herein to write final examinations to beconducted on 16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008 in various centres atChennai by issuing Hall Tickets to them. As submitted by thelearned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Public ServiceCommission, the petitioners are entitled to collect theirrespective Hall Tickets from the Secretary, Tamil Nadu PublicService Commission, Chennai, in its office on or before 5.00p.m. on 14.08.2008. It is made clear that allowing thepetitioners to write the examinations does not mean that theirrights to appear for final examination are recognised by thisCourt.ii.The answer papers of final examinations to be taken by thepetitioners as per the above said direction shall be keptseparately in a sealed cover by the Tamil Nadu Public ServiceCommission without referring for valuation.iii.All the petitioners before this Court are permitted to makeindividual representation to the respondent, Tamil Nadu PublicService Commission, bringing out the specific instances ofmistake ascertained by them in the question papers or in the keyanswers, provided such questions are attended by the petitionersconcerned. They must also disclose their names, addresses,register numbers, question numbers, question booklet series, theWrit Petition Numbers, the genuine doubt about their key answersetc. in the representation. Such representations shall besubmitted by the petitioners to the Secretary, Tamil Nadu PublicService Commission, in its office on or before 5.00 p.m. on14.08.2008. As fairly submitted by the learned counsel for therespondent Public Service Commission, on submission of suchrepresentation by individual petitioner, the Tamil Nadu PublicService Commission shall acknowledge the receipt of suchobjections by making proper endorsement. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ iv.On receipt of the said representations, the respondent ServiceCommission shall place the entire issue before the ExpertsCommittee to be constituted by it for verification by comparingthe necessary papers of the concerned petitioners and to arriveat a final decision about its correctness or otherwise. In theevent of the Experts appointed by the respondent ServiceCommission deciding that the questions attempted by theindividual petitioner are either wrong or some mistakes havecrept in, the respondent Service Commission shall grantnecessary marks to the concerned petitioners.v.After completion of the above said exercise, the respondentService Commission shall decide about the petitionersentitlement or eligibility of the petitioners to write the finalwritten examination based on the cut off mark issued by theService Commission and thereafter, the Service Commission shalldirect valuation of the final examination papers of thosepetitioners alone. With regard to the petitioners, who are notable to get the required cut off mark, after the exercise madeby the Service Commission as stated above, their final writtenexamination papers need not be valued and the said factum shallbe published by the Service Commission in its usual manner.vi.It is made clear that the decision of the Tamil Nadu PublicService Commission after referring to the Experts opinion shallbe final, however subject to any legal remedy, which may beavailable to the petitioners. All other rights of PublicService Commission as per the Notification issued by them shallcontinue to be operative. It is made clear that if thepetitioners do not appear before the respondent ServiceCommission by the time stipulated for submitting theirobjections and receiving Hall Tickets, they are not entitled forthe benefits given in this order.Connected M.Ps. are closed. No costs.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.bs/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Secretary,Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,Government Estate, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.W.P.No.18714 of 2008 etc. Batch NSM (CO)kk 30/12