Andconnected miscellaneous petitions etc. BatchS.SENTHIL KUMAR v. The Secretary,Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,Chennai-2

2.THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU..FIRST RESPONDENT INREP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY WP.NO.450/2009 2NDSECRETARIAT, CHENNAI-9. RESPONDENT IN WP.NO. 750/2009 & WP.NO. 787/20091. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9.2. THE TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP. BY CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, GOVERNMENT ESTATE, CHENNAI-2. ..RESPONDENTS IN WP.NO.11731/2009THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION,TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,..2ND RESPONDENT INCHENNAI-2. WP.NO.12390/2008Prayer in WP.29831 & 29832/2008 : Petitioners under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ ofMandamus, directing the respondent to re-evaluate the petitioner'smain answer papers in the Group-I Services Main Examinationconducted by the respondent on 16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008 by comparingthe same with the last 3 candidates selected in each category.PRAYER: W.P.No.30554/2008: Writ of Mandamus directing therespondent to cancel the results of the main examination for GroupI Services for the year 2006-2007 held on 16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008and declare the same only after complying with the directions ofthis Court dated 13.08.2008 in WP.No.18780/2008 and after properevaluation and to consider the case of the petitioner forappointment to Group-I Service in accordance with theAdvertisement/No.120 dated 01.08.2007 issued by the respondent forfiling up the Group-I Posts, award costsW.P.No.30738 of 2008Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to cancel the results ofthe main examination in Group I Examination 2006-2007 conducted bythe respondent on 16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008 due to incompetentvaluation and unfair practice and consequently to conduct freshmain examination for the same. W.P.No.30739 of 2008Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to cancel the results ofthe Main Examination in Group I Examination 2006-2007 conducted by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the respondent on 16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008 due to incompetentvaluation and unfair practice and consequently to conduct freshMain Examination for the same.W.P.No.30740 of 2008Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to cancel the results ofthe Main Examination in Group I Examination 2006-2007 conducted bythe respondent on 16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008 without constitutingthe Expert Committee consequently to conduct fresh Main Examinationfor the same based on the findings of the Expert committeeconstituted as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court on13.08.2008 in W.P.Nos 19121 of 2008 batch.W.P.No.30742 of 2008 Writ in the nature of DECLARATION declaring the action of therespondent in not constituting the Expert Committee as directed bythis Hon'ble Court on 14.08.2008 in WP.No.18888 of 2008 batch forverifying the discrepancies of Wrong Key answers that has crept into the preliminary examination dated 23.12.2007 and announcing theresults of the Main Examination conducted on 16.08.2008 and17.08.2008 without adhering to the above, as illegal, arbitrary,malafide and vindictive.W.P.No.30743/08Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent to cancelthe results of the Main Examination in Group I Examination 2006-2007 conducted by the respondent on 16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008without constituting the Expert committee, consequently to conductfresh Main Examination for the same based on the findings of theExpert Committee constituted as per the directions of this Hon'bleCourt on 13.08.2008 in WP.No.18888 of 2008 batch.W.P.No.30744/08Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order ordirection in the nature of Writ, directing the respondent, to allowthe petitioner to participate in the personal interview beingconducted in pursuance of Group-I TNPSC Examination for the year2006-2007.W.P.No.30770 of 2008 Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to cancelthe results of the Main Examination in Group-I Examination 2006-2007 conducted by the respondent on 16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008without constituting the Expert Committee, consequently to conductfresh Main Examination for the same based on the findings of theExpert Committee constituted as per the directions of this Hon'blecourt on 13.8.2008 in W.P. Nos. 18888 of 2008 batch. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.NO.30771 of 2008 Writ in the nature of DECLARATION declaring the action of therespondent in not constituting the Expert Committee as directed bythis Hon'ble court on 13.08.2008 in W.P. No.18888 of 2008 batch forverifying the discrepancies of wrong key answers that has crept into the preliminary examination dated 23.12.2007 and announcing theresults of the Main Examination conducted on 16.08.2008 and17.08.2008 without adhering to the above, as illegal, arbitrary,malafide and vindictive.W.P.No.30794 of 2008 Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating tothe provisional list of selected candidates for the ORAL TEST forGroup-I Services 2006-2007 issued by the 1st respondent publishedin Internet and quash the same and consequentially direct the 1stRespondent to publish results of the petitioner in Group-IPreliminary Examination 2006-2007 as per the Hon'ble High courtOrder in W.P. 12127/08 dated 31.7.2008 enable the petitionerparticipate in the further Selection process.W.P.No.30795 of 2008 Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating tothe provisional list of selected candidates for the ORAL TEST forGroup-I services 2006-2007 issued by the 1st respondent publishedin Internet and quash the same and consequentially direct the 1stRespondent to publish results of the petitioner in Group-IPreliminary Examination 2006-2007 as per the Hon'ble High Courtorder in W.P.12127/08 dated 31.7.2008 enable the petitionerparticipate in the further selection process.W.P.NO.30796 OF 2008WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS call for the records relating tothe provisional list of selected candidates for the ORAL TEST forgroup I services 2006-2007 issued by the ist respondent publishedin Internet and quash the same and consequentially direct the istrespondent to publish results of the petitioner in Group Ipreliminary examination 2006-2007 as per the dirctions atHonourbale High court as on 12127/08 dated 31.7.2008.W.P.No.30798/2008 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction, directing therespondent to release the cut off marks of the petitioner alongwith the marks obtained by the petitioner in Group I mainExamination. W.P.No.30900/2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to issue appropriate Writs, Orders or Directions and in particulara WRIT in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent to cancelthe results of the main examination in Group I examination 2006-2007 conducted by the respondent on 16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008 withoutconstituting the Expert Committee, consequently to conduct freshmain examination for the same based on the findings of the ExpertCommittee constituted as per the directions of this Honourablecourt on 13.8.2008 in W.P. Nos. 19243 of 2008 batch W.P.NO.450/2009WRIT in the nature of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for allrelevant records regarding the selection process involved in theimpugned selected list for oral test dated 08.12.2008 published inthe official websit by the respondent in the Group - I Examination2006-2007 herein to quash the same as arbitrary, improper, illegalagainst the rules and procedures of the 1st respondent, therebydirecting the 1st respondent to cancel the results of the MainExamination in Group - I Examination 2006-2007 conducted on16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008 and consequently conduct fresh MainExamination for the same.W.P.No.787/09WRIT in the nature of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for allrelevant records regarding the selection process involved in theimpugend selected list for oral test dated 08.12.2008 published bythe 1st respondent in their official website in the Group IExamination 2006-07 herein to quash the same as arbitrary improper,illegal against the rules and procedures of the first respondent,thereby directing the first respondent to cancel the results of themain examination in group I examination 2006-2007 conducted on 16-08-2008 and 17-08-2008 and consequetnly conduct fresh mainexamination for the same. W.P.NO.989/2009to issue appropriate Writs, Orders or Directions and in particulara WRIT in the nature of DECLARATION declaring the Notification forthe Group I Examination 2006-2007 dt 1.8.2007 and the selectionprocess of the said Group I examination as arbitrary, illegal,unlawful and malafideW.P.3130/2009WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the relating to theresults of Group -I preliminary Examination 2006-2007 conducted bythe respondent published on 25.4.2008 and all further proceedingsin furtherance of the notification dated 01.08.2007 invitingapplication for the direct recruitment to the vacancies for theposts included in the Group -1 services excaminations 2006-2007 andquash the same as improper, illegal and unconstitutional andconsequetially direct the respondent to conduct the Group Ipreliminary Exdamination 2006-2007 afresh in accordance with law https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.3131/2009WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for the relating to theresults of Group -I preliminary EXamination 2006-2007 conducted bythe respondent published on 25.4.2008 and all further proceedingsin furtherance of the notification dated 01.08.2007 invitingapplication for the direct recruitment to the vacancies for theposts included in the Group -1 services excaminations 2006-2007 andquash the same as improper, illegal and unconstitutional andconsequentially direct the respondent to conduct the Group Ipreliminary Exdamination 2006-2007 afresh in accordance with lawW.P.No.11731/08WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records relating tothe list of registered numbers of candidates who have been admittedprovisionally to the oral test for appointment by directrecruitment to the posts included in Group I Service for the year2006-2007 based on the results of the main written examinationconducted by the second respondent commission on 16.8.2008 and17.8.2008 issued by the second respondent dated nil and publishedin website on 8.12.2008 and quash the same and consequently directthe second respondent to redo the evaluation exercise of theresults of preliminary examination held on 23.12.2007 forappointment by direct recruitment to the posts included in Group Iservices 2006-2007W.P.No.12390/2008to issue an order, or a direction or a Writ, particularly in thenature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to reevaluatepetitioner's answer scripts vide register No.00175286 pertaining tothe recruitment to the posts included in Group-I services 2006-2007and consequently publish his resultW.P.NO.63/2009WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the respondent to produce the answerpapers of the petitioner (Registration No.01027256) in respect ofthe main written examination held on 16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008 fordirect recruitment to the post included in Group I service 2006-2007 for being compared with that of any answer papers of any othercandidates selected for interview W.P.NO.231/2009WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ, Order of Directionin the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to direct the respondent topublish marks of the petitioner for the Group-I Main Examination https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ held on 16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008 and consequently direct therespondent to conduct interview for the petitioner if he securedeligible cut of marks in the group-I main exam.W.P.NO.30554/2009to issue appropriate Writs, Orders or Directions and in particularissue a Writ in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent tocancel the results of the main written examination for Group Iservices for the year 2006-2007 held on 16-8-08 and 17-8-08 anddeclare the same only after complying with the directions of thishonourable court dt. 13-8-2008 in WP NO. 18780 of 2008 and afterproper evaluation and consequently consider the case of thepetitoner for appointment to Group I services in accordance withthe Advertisement No. 120 dt. 1-08-2007 issued by the respondentfor filling up the Group I posts, award costs.W.P.NO.30794/2008 & 30796/2008 : Mr.K.Venkatramani, S.C for M/S.R.Siva Kumar for Petitioner : Mr.V.T.Gopalan,S.C for M/S.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi(TNPSC) for Respondent W.P.NO.29831/2008& 29832/08 : Mr.Vijay Narayan for Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen Kumar for Petitioner W.P.NO.30742 to 30743 : Mr.D.Chandrasekar for Petitioner W.P.NO.30744/2008 : Dr.Krishnamoorthy for Petitioner W.P.No.30554/2008 : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar for Row and Reddy for Petitioner W.P.NO.30770& W.P.No.30771/2008 :Mr.N.G.R.Prasad,S.C for Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen Kumar for Petitioner W.P.No.30798/2008 :Mr.V.Bhiman for Petitioner W.P.No.30900/2008&W.P.No.30738/2008 ,W.P.787/2009 :Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen Kumar for Petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.NO.450/2009 :Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, S.C for Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen KumarW.P.No.989/2009 : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan,S.C. for Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen Kumar.W.P.NO.11731/2008(MD)& w.p.No.63/2009 (MD) :Mr.G.R.Swaminathan for Petitioner W.P.No.12390/2008(MD) :Mr.S.R.Venkateswaran for Petitioner W.P.No.231/2009 :Mr.V.T.Balaji for Petitioner W.P.No.3130/2009& W.P.No.3131/2009 :Mr.R.Shiva Kumar for PetitionerM.P.No.1/2009INW.P.No.29831/2008 :Mr.C.Selvaraj,S.C for Mr.S.Mani for implead PetitionersM.P.No.3 &6/2009IN\W.P.No.989/2009 :Mr.A.L.Somayaji, S.C for Mr.Satish Parasaran for impleaded Petitioner COMMON ORDERSince Group-I Services in the State of Tamil Nadu provide ashort cut for entry into All India Services (IAS, IPS etc.), everyselection to Group-I Services, has always been bogged down bylitigation and the batch of cases on hand is one such. Butunfortunately, it is a second round of litigation in respect of thesame selection, for reasons mainly attributable to persons who setthe question papers for the preliminary examination. 2. I have heard Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, Mr.Vijay Narayan, Mr,T.R.Rajagopalan, Mr. AR.L.Sundaresan, Mr.K.Venkataramani and Dr.G.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior counsel/Counsel appearing for thepetitioners and Mr.V.T.Gopalan and Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned SeniorCounsel appearing for the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, andMr.AL.Somayaji and Mr.C.Selvaraju, learned Senior Counsel appearingfor the some candidates who have filed impleading petitions.3. By a notification published on 1.8.2007, the Tamil NaduPublic Service Commission (Respondent) invited applications fromeligible candidates for direct recruitment to 172 posts included inGroup-I Services of the State of Tamil Nadu, for the year 2006-2007. The process of selection comprised of (i) a preliminaryexamination for selecting candidates for admission to the main https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ examination (ii) a main written examination and (iii) an oralinterview. 4. A total of 85,913 candidates are said to have applied inresponse to the notification and the preliminary examination washeld at various centres in the State on 23.12.2007. On 25.4.2008,the results of the preliminary examination were declared and out ofthose candidates who appeared for the preliminary examination,1,796 candidates were declared successful for admission to the mainwritten examination. This represented 10 times the total number ofposts sought to be filled up.5. Immediately after the announcement of the results of thepreliminary examination, a batch of 31 writ petitions came to befiled by some unsuccessful candidates, contending that there wereserious mistakes in some of the questions and/or in the key answersto those questions. By a judgment dated 31.7.2008, Justice N.PaulVasantha Kumar, disposed of the batch of writ petitionsW.P.Nos.12127 of 2008 etc., with the following directions:-"18. In the light of the above findings andhaving regard to the judgments cited supra, I aminclined to pass the following orders:(i) The petitioners herein are directed tosubmit representation pointing out the number ofquestions where the questions are not correctlyasked, more number of answers are found correctas per leading text books and whether key answerto the questions are correctly given on orbefore 7.8.2008.(ii) On receiving the said representationsthe respondent/TNPSC is directed to place thedisputed questions/answers before the ExpertCommittee to be constituted by it forverification as to whether the questions pointedout are correct, if more than one answer givenin the choice are correct and whether the keyanswers given to any question pointed out by thepetitioners are wrong.(iii) On verifying the same, the ExpertCommittee is directed to award marks to such ofthose petitioners who attempted the saidquestions and on that basis determine the finalmarks of the petitioners in the preliminaryexamination.(iv) Since the above said exercise willtake sometime and in view of fixation of datefor the main written examination as 16.8.2008and 17.8.2008, the respondent/TNPSC is directedto permit the petitioners herein to write the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ main written examinations along with 1750candidates, who are already found eligible towrite main written examination.(v) By following the above process, if thepetitioners are getting the required cut-offmarks prescribed for the respective category,their final written examination papers shall bevalued. If the petitioners are not getting therequired cut-off marks, their final writtenexamination papers need not be valued.(vi) Since the preliminary examinationresults were published as early as on 25.4.2008,and the main written examination is to be heldon 16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008, the benefit of thisorder is restricted to the writ petitionersherein, as no general directions could be issuedat this belated stage.All the writ petitions are orderedaccordingly. No costs. Connected miscellaneouspetitions are closed."6. Following the above judgment, rendered on 31.7.2008,another writ petition filed on the same day viz., 31.7.2008 wasallowed by the learned Judge, on 8.8.2008. But in the meantime,another group of 76 persons filed 77 writ petitions inW.P.Nos.18714 of 2008 etc., seeking identical reliefs. This batchof petitions was opposed by the Service Commission on the groundthat as per the earlier order dated 31.7.2008, the benefits of theorder were restricted only to the writ petitioners in the firstbatch. But the said objection was over ruled and the second batchof writ petitions were disposed of by Justice P.Jothimani by acommon order passed on 13.8.2008. The operative portion of the saidorder in paragraph-17 reads as follows:-"17. For the reasons stated, the above writpetitions stand disposed of with the followingdirections:(i) The respondent, Tamil Nadu Public ServiceCommission, shall permit the petitioners herein towrite final examinations to be conducted on16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008 in various centres atChennai by issuing Hall Tickets to them. Assubmitted by the learned counsel appearing for theTamil Nadu Public Service Commission, thepetitioners are entitled to collect theirrespective Hall Tickets from the Secretary, TamilNadu Public Service Commission, Chennai, in itsOffice on or before 5.00 p.m., on 14.8.2008. It ismade clear that allowing the petitioners to writethe examination does not mean that their rights toappear for final examination are recognised bythis Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) The answer papers of final examinationsto be taken by the petitioners as per the abovesaid direction shall be kept separately in asealed cover by the Tamil Nadu Public ServiceCommission without referring for valuation.(iii) All the petitioners before this Courtare permitted to make individual representation tothe respondent, Tamil Nadu Public ServiceCommission, bringing out the specific instances ofmistake ascertained by them in the question papersor in the key answers, provided such questions areattended by the petitioners concerned. They mustalso disclose their names, addresses, registernumbers, question numbers, question bookletseries, the Writ Petition Numbers, the genuinedoubt about their key answers etc., in therepresentation. Such representations shall besubmitted by the petitioners to the Secretary,Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, in itsOffice on or before 5.00 p.m., on 14.8.2008. Asfairly submitted by the learned counsel for therespondent Public Service Commission, onsubmission of such representation by individualpetitioners, the Tamil Nadu Public ServiceCommission shall acknowledge the receipt of suchobjections by making proper endorsement.(iv) On receipt of the said representations,the respondent Service Commission shall place theentire issue before the Experts Committee to beconstituted by it for verification by comparingthe necessary papers of the concerned petitionersand to arrive at a final decision about itscorrectness or otherwise. In the event of theExperts appointed by the respondent ServiceCommission deciding that the questions attemptedby the individual petitioner are either wrong orsome mistakes have crept in, the respondentService Commission shall grant necessary marks tothe concerned petitioners.(v) After completion of the above saidexercise, the respondent Service Commission shalldecide about the petitioners entitlement oreligibility of the petitioners to write the finalwritten examination based on the cut off markissued by the Service Commission and thereafter,the Service Commission shall direct valuation ofthe final examination papers of those petitionersalone. With regard to the petitioners, who are notable to get the required cut off mark, after theexercise made by the Service Commission as statedabove, their final written examination papers neednot be valued and the said factum shall be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ published by the Service Commission in its usualmanner.(vi) It is made clear that the decision ofthe Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission afterreferring to the Experts opinion shall be final,however subject to any legal remedy, which may beavailable to the petitioners. All other rights ofPublic Service Commission as per the Notificationissued by them shall continue to be operative. Itis made clear that if the petitioners do notappear before the respondent Service Commission bythe time stipulated for submitting theirobjections and receiving Hall Tickets, they arenot entitled for the benefits given in thisorder."7. Based on the above order passed on 13.8.2008, in the groupof 77 writ petitions, 12 more writ petitions came to be allowed on14.8.2008 and 5 writ petitions came to be allowed in the MaduraiBench of this Court, following these orders. Thus a total of 126writ petitions, filed by 125 candidates (one candidate filed twowrit petitions) were covered by the aforesaid directions passed bythe two learned Judges. 8. As a result of the orders passed in the above batches ofwrit petitions, 125 candidates who were the writ petitioners inthose batches of writ petitions, were permitted to write the mainwritten examination, along with the 1,796 candidates originallydeclared successful. All of them wrote the main written examinationon 16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008. 9. As per the directions issued in the above batches of cases,the Service Commission constituted a Committee of 23 Experts andthe petitioners in the above batches of cases submittedrepresentations to them, pointing out the questions and/or answersdisputed by them. The Expert Committee examined these disputedquestions, about 40 in number, finalised the correct answers,compared those correct answers with the original key answers, withwhich the Service Commission originally made the evaluation. Inthis process, some of those 125 writ petitioners gained extra marksand some of them lost even the original tally. 10. Finally, the Expert Committee found that out of 125 writpetitioners, who filed the previous batches of writ petitions, only25 candidates secured the cut off marks, after revaluation, to beeligible for admission to the main written examination.Consequently, the Service Commission sent for evaluation, theanswer papers of only these 25 out of 125 candidates, in the mainwritten examination. 11. After evaluating the answer papers of these 25 candidates,in the main written examination, apart from evaluating the answerpapers of the originally qualified 1,796 candidates, the Service https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Commission declared the results of the main written examination on8.12.2008. Among the persons declared successful in the mainwritten examination, it was found that only two out of those 25candidates had been successful. Therefore those two candidates wereinvited for oral interview held during the period from 26.12.2008to 3.1.2009. 12. Thus, in the ultimate analysis, out of 125 candidates, whochallenged the results of the preliminary examination, only 25could make it to the main written examination and out of these 25,only two could make it to the oral interview, leaving the love'slabour lost for the others. Therefore, another set of candidates,comprising of those who had come up earlier and those who arecoming for the first time, have come up with the present batch ofwrit petitions. Due to the pendency of these writ petitions, thefinal list of selected candidates has not so far been released,though the Service Commission has released, in their Website, themarks scored by all candidates, who were invited for the oralinterview. Therefore, some candidates, who found their marks to befairly high, have come up with petitions for impleading themselvesin these writ petitions, out of fear that the writ petitioners mayplay spoilsport, in the chances of their success in the selectionprocess. Hence all the writ petitions and the impleading petitionswere taken up for disposal, with the consent of all the parties. 13. The present batch of writ petitions can be divided intothree categories viz., (a) those who are coming up for the firsttime before this Court, (b) those who came up earlier, permitted bythis court to write the main examination and found by the ExpertCommittee to have qualified in the preliminary examination, but whofailed in the main written examination and (c) those who came upearlier and who were found by the Expert Committee appointed bythis Court to have not got qualified in the preliminaryexamination. Legally and factually, the cases of these threecategories of petitioners, lie on different footing than oneanother. Therefore, each category will have to be dealt withdifferently.CATEGORY- 1 : Petitioners coming to Court for the first timeW.P.NOBENCHNAMEPASSED OR NOT INPRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS1WP 450of 2009MadrasM ChandrasekaranK SenthilnathanKn SakthivelT ArasuP UshaM SandhanamR DevarajM VenkateshPASSED https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2WP 787of 2009MadrasNatrajan P GunasekarnS PaneerselvamK R BalajiPASSED3WP (MD)11731of 2008MaduraiR GanesanL NagarajanA MuthupandiPASSED4WP (MD)12390of 2008MaduraiP SubramanianPASSED5WP30738, of2008MadrasK Ramesh KumarPASSED6WP30744of 2008MadrasK DevarajanPASSED7WP (MD)63 of2009MaduraiN SURESHPASSED8WP30739of 2008MadrasS RAMESHPASSEDCATEGORY 2: Persons who came to court earlier, permitted by Courtto attend the Main Examination and who were subsequently declaredby the Expert Committee to have passed in the preliminaryexamination.WP No.Name PriorWrit No.Marks beforeReassessmentAfterReassessment1WP 30794of 2008+ WP 3130of 2009P V VIJEYAKARTHIK RAJAWP 14855of 2008193196.52WP 29831of 2008S SENTHIL KUMARWP 12127of 2008192196.53WP 30796of 2008S SENTHILNATHANWP 17474of 2008 199202.54WP 30770andWP 30771of 2008 (2 writpetitionswithdifferentprayers)M SELVARAJV KARTHIKEYANWP 18888of 2008193.5199.5195201 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5WP 30798of 2008K.RamyaWP 17452of 2008178.5180CATEGORY-3 : Persons who came to Court earlier and permitted toattend the Main Examination but declared by the Expert Committee tohave failed in the Preliminary examinationWP NoBenchNameEarlier WPMarksbeforereassessmentAfterreassessment1WP 30795&WP 3131of 2008chennaiM A RAVIVARMAWP14854of20081921922WP 29832of 2008ChennaiR GOVINDASWAMYWP13762of200151.5154.53WP 989 of2009ChennaiD GANESH BABUWP18889of2008196.51924WP 30742&WP 30743of 2008ChennaiM SENTHIL KUMARWP18888of2008198196.55WP (MD)231 of2009MaduraiS JOHN KENNEDYWP7174of20081961996WP 30554of 2008MadrasKDHAKSHINAMOORTHIWP18780of20081981987WP 30900of 2008MadrasS JANAKIRAMANWP19243of2008187.51868WP 30740of 2008MadrasP MAHALAKSHMIWP19121of2008175.51719WP 30770& WP 30771of 2008MadrasV. BALASUBRA-MANIAMV ARIVUKANNANC SANGUWP18888of2008205.5192175.5208.5186175.5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CATEGORY-1:14. Persons who have come up with a challenge to the selectionprocess, for the first time before this Court, form Category-I.Even at the outset, these petitioners who have come up for thefirst time challenging the selection process cannot be allowed toraise any objections to the preliminary examination, as they areguilty of delay and laches. The preliminary examination wasconducted on 1.8.2007 and the results were declared in the lastweek of April 2008. One set of persons came up with a batch of writpetitions, challenging the method in which the preliminaryexaminations were conducted and they succeeded, by the order dated31.7.2008. Even in the order dated 31.7.2008, passed by JusticeN.Paul Vasanthakumar, it was indicated clearly in paragraph-18(vi)that the benefit of that order was restricted only to thepetitioners in that batch. The learned Judge made it clear that nogeneral directions could be issued at that belated stage.15. However, a second batch of writ petitions were filed andthey were entertained on the ground that they approached the Courtbefore the conduct of the main written examination on 16.8.2008 and17.8.2008. But even while extending the benefit of the order passedin the first batch of writ petitions, dated 31.7.2008, JusticeP.Jothimani, made it clear in paragraph-16 of judgment dated13.8.2008 passed in the second batch of writ petitions that thesame benefit cannot be extended to others. The relevant portion ofthe said order found in the last portion of paragraph-16 of thejudgment of Justice P.Jothimani in John Kennedy vs. Secretary,Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai {2008 (8) MLJ 836}reads as follows:-"This Court would have otherwise extendedthe benefits which are to be given to thesepetitioners, to the other candidates also, butthe same is restricted to these petitionersbefore this Court, due to the reason that suchan exercise may result in grave prejudice to theadministration and such exercise may be unwieldyand unworkable."16. Thus the order passed in the second batch of writpetitions, sealed any further inflow into this Court on thissubject. Therefore the petitioners who have come up for the firsttime are barred, on account of the above observations of thelearned Judge in the order passed in the second batch of writpetitions.17. The learned counsel appearing for the petitionerscontended that the order passed in the second batch of writpetitions was in the nature of a preliminary order, in as much asthe Service Commission failed to disclose all the details at thattime and that the Service Commission did not even produce the keyanswers to the Court. In support of this contention, the learnedcounsel for the petitioners relied upon certain observations in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ paragraph-16 of the judgment dated 13.8.2008 passed in the secondbatch of writ petitions. The learned Judge has observed inparagraph-16 of his judgment that the Service Commission did notadmittedly produce even the key answers to the Court. The learnedJudge had also observed that the Service Commission exercisingconstitutional functions under Article 320(i) of the Constitutionought to have produced the key answers in fairness before thisCourt, to enable the Court to come to a proper conclusion. Inparagraph-7 of his judgment also, the learned Judge had indicatedthat some of the questions which were found to be wrong, wereshocking and alarming and were only examples.18. On the basis of those observations and on the basis of theExpert Committee's report, the learned counsel for the petitionerscontended that the order of the learned Judge could only be treatedas a preliminary order and that after the report of the ExpertCommittee, the entire complexion of the game changed. Therefore thelearned counsel contended that the petitioners who have come toCourt for the first time can also maintain the writ petitions.19. However, I am of the considered view that the abovecontentions cannot be accepted. Despite being convinced that somequestions and key answers were wrong, the learned Judge refused toopen the Pandora's Box, on the simple logic that it would paralysethe administration. Though the learned Judge did not elaborate onthis, the reasons are not too far to seek. Admittedly, 85,000candidates had taken the preliminary examination on 23.12.2007. Theresults of the preliminary examination were declared on 25.4.2008and only 1,796 candidates were declared successful, leaving about83,000 candidates unsuccessful in the preliminary examination.20. Out of those 83,000 candidates, who were unsuccessful,only 31 persons came up with writ petitions in the first instanceand those writ petitions were disposed of on 31.7.2008 by JusticeN.Paul Vasanthakumar. On the date on which the said order waspassed viz., 31.7.2008, one writ petition came to be filed andhence it was allowed on 8.8.2008. In the second batch 76 personscame up with a batch of 77 writ petitions which were allowed byJustice P.Jothimani, on 13.8.2008. A group of left over writpetitions, numbering 12, were allowed on 14.8.2008. Similarly, 5writ petitions were ordered in the Madurai Bench. Thus, it is only125 candidates out of a total number of about 83,000 unsuccessfulcandidates, who chose to come up before Court. The others chose tobe fence sitters, as they are termed by the Apex Court, waiting fora miracle to happen in the form of an Expert Committee. It is notas if the new writ petitioners have come up after coming to know ofthe report of the Expert Committee. The report of the ExpertCommittee constituted in pursuance of the orders of this Court inthe first two batches of writ petitions, was not published. TheService Commission merely published the results of the main writtenexamination, after which the present batch of writ petitions cameto be filed.21. Therefore the candidates who have come up with the writpetitions for the first time, are guilty of delay and laches andare deemed to have accepted their fate, irrespective of what it is. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hence the first timers cannot be granted any relief, except wishingthem the best of luck for the ensuing selections.CATEGORY-2:22. The second category of persons are those who werepetitioners in the earlier batch of writ petitions. In pursuance ofthe orders passed in the earlier batch, an Expert Committeecomprising of 23 persons were constituted by the ServiceCommission. The petitioners falling under the second category aswell as the others who were parties to the previous batch of writpetitions, filed their objections before the Expert Committee. TheExpert Committee found that the writ petitioners and others raiseddisputes with regard to the correctness of 40 questions. Thereforethe Expert Committee examined those 40 questions with reference tothe key answers and came to an independent conclusion about whatthe correct answers to those questions were. On the basis of theanswers so arrived at by them, the Expert Committee took the answerpapers of all the 125 candidates who were the writ petitioners inthe two previous batches of cases and evaluated their answers.After evaluating their answer sheets with reference to the correctanswers decided by the Expert Committee, the marks awarded to allthe 125 candidates were tested on the bench mark of the cut offmarks for each category (OC, BC, MBC, SC, ST, General and Womenetc.). Such testing resulted in only 25 out of 125 candidates whowere parties to the earlier writ petitions, being found to havesecured the cut off marks for being invited for the main writtenexamination. Therefore as per the directions contained inparagraph-17(v) of the decision of Justice P.Jothimani in JohnKennedy vs. Secretary, TNPSC, the answer papers of these 25candidates in the main written examination were taken up forevaluation. After evaluation, only two out of these 25 candidateswere found to have qualified in the main written examination andbecame eligible for being invited for oral interview.23. The second category of writ petitioners are those whobelong to this group of "select 25" who were found to have clearedthe preliminary examination, but who did not qualify in the mainwritten examination. In other words, this group of 25 persons, whowere declared to have cleared the preliminary examination, by theExpert Committee constituted in pursuance of the orders of thisCourt, are actually the beneficiaries of the order passed by thisCourt. But unfortunately, they could not succeed in the second tierof selection. Therefore they are now not entitled to challenge thepreliminary examination.24. Interestingly, a few of these candidates who succeeded inthe preliminary examination, but failed in the main writtenexamination and a few writ petitioners who have come up for thefirst time after clearing the preliminary examination, have alsochallenged the validity of the main written examination at thisstage. The challenge to the main written examination is made on thefollowing grounds:-(a) that there was no liberal valuation;(b) that there were incompetent examiners;(c) that the lecturers of the same College conducted double https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ valuation;(d) that the Service Commission changed the pattern of theexamination;(e) that the candidates were required to answer questions, innot more than certain number of words, which totalled to astaggering figure of 5,200 words, if all the questions are takentogether and it was actually impossible;(f) that the pattern of question paper was known to thecandidates who attended classes in a Coaching Centre recentlyinaugurated, indicating thereby that the selection process was notfair;(g) that a male candidate was invited for oral interviewagainst a slot reserved for a woman candidate;(h) that a candidate who had not obtained the No ObjectionCertificate from the employer was invited for interview inviolation of the prescription; and (i) that the separate valuation conducted for 25 candidates,who were declared successful by the Expert Committee, was not donein a fair and proper manner.25. I do not think that any of the above contentions shoulddetain me for a long time. That there was strict valuation orliberal valuation can never be a ground to assail an examination,especially when it is a highly competitive examination forselection of persons to the highest cadre of posts in the StateServices. Therefore the first ground of attack cannot be accepted.26. The allegation that the Service Commission appointedincompetent examiners to value the answer papers, is made solely onthe basis that one examiner by name T.Vijayakumar did not have 4years of experience as an examiner in valuing papers. But thisallegation is denied by the Service Commission on the ground thatthe said T.Vijayakumar had one year of experience in the presentinstitution, but already possessed 3 years experience in a previousinstitution. In paragraph-19(g) of the counter affidavit filed bythe Service Commission in W.P.No.989 of 2009, the ServiceCommission has denied the averment that a minimum of 4 years ofstanding is required for a person to be an examiner. Therefore thecontention raised by the petitioner in this regard appears to benot based upon any Rule or Regulation nor even based upon the pastpractices. From the statistics furnished by the Service Commissionin paragraph-19(g) of the counter affidavit, it is seen that atotal of 144 examiners were involved in the process of valuing theanswer sheets. The Service Commission has explained in the counteraffidavit, the process of selection of these examiners. It isclaimed by the Service Commission that a list of competentexaminers is invited from the Registrars of Universities andPrincipals of various Colleges and that out of the list forwardedto the Commission, a random selection is made. Therefore by makingan averment not supported by any Rule or Regulation, against oneout of a total of 144 examiners, the petitioners cannot plead thatthe valuation process in the main written examination was vitiated.27. The next contention that the lecturers of the same Collegeconducted double valuation, cannot really hold good. It is stated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the Service Commission that a person who conducted firstvaluation on a particular paper was prevented from conducting thesecond valuation of the same paper. The only requirement is thatboth valuations should not be done by the same examiner. Thisrequirement, according to the Service Commission, has been strictlycomplied with. There is no allegation by the petitioners that thesame person conducted the first and second valuation of the sameanswer paper. There is no bar for the Examiners from the samecollege conducting one valuation each.28. The allegation that the Service Commission changed thepattern of the question paper, even if true, cannot advance thecause of the petitioners. It is not disputed that the syllabus forthe main written examination indicated to be of a descriptive type,was notified in the Website of the Service Commission. All that thecandidates participating in such examinations are entitled to know,is the syllabus. So long as the syllabus is not changed, thecandidates cannot take exception to the change of pattern ofexamination.29. The next contention that the pattern of examinationrequired answers to be written to the extent of 5,200 words andthat it was impossible to achieve the said outer limit, has noforce. It is seen from the question paper that the ServiceCommission had merely prescribed that the answers to each questionshall not exceed a particular number of words. The maximum numberof words to which the answers to all questions are to be limited,together worked out to 5,200. It is not the allegation of thepetitioners that the marks awarded to candidates were based uponthe number of words contained in the answers to each question. Awrong answer written in the maximum number of words may not carryany mark, while a crisp and right answer written in half themaximum number of words might have carried the maximum marks. Solong as there is no allegation that the examiners were carried awayby the total number of words contained in the answers, thiscontention of the petitioners cannot be accepted.30. The petitioners have made a very serious allegationagainst a Coaching Centre allegedly started 7 months before thecommencement of the selection process. Though, at the beginning,the petitioners were only making wild allegations, without anyconcrete material, it appears that the petitioners came across twoimportant material to raise the level of credibility of theirsuspicion. It is the contention of the petitioners that in themodel question paper, given to the students of the particularCoaching Centre, a similar pattern of examination was indicated.It is also stated across the Bar, at the time of arguments, that inthe final tally of 178 candidates, who may now get selected (byvirtue of the marks displayed in the Website of the ServiceCommission), 48 candidates were students of that Coaching Centre.Such an assertion is made on the basis of the claim made by thevery Coaching Centre with the photographs of 48 candidatespublished by them.31. But unfortunately for the petitioners, the law is wellsettled that any amount of suspicion cannot take the place of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proof. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearingfor the impleading petitioners (who are likely to get selectedbecause of the marks secured by them), these allegations are notsufficient to set aside the entire process of selection. Thepresumption that there cannot be smoke without fire, cannot be madea rule of law, though it may serve as a rule of conscience for thepowers that be, to look into it. I only hope that the ServiceCommission itself takes up this issue seriously and order aninvestigation to find out what went wrong (if anything had gonewrong) and if so, where it went wrong. 32. A male candidate by name Ponnuerusan, who belongs to theMost Backward Community, did not secure the cut off marks in themain written examination, to be eligible for being invited forinterview. But unfortunately, he was invited wrongly for theinterview and he was also awarded 60 out of the maximum of 80 marksby the Interviewing Committee. It is the contention of thepetitioners that that candidate was invited in the place of a MostBackward Community woman candidate, who ought to have been invitedfor interview.33. In paragraph-19(i) of their counter affidavit, the ServiceCommission has admitted that a mistake had crept in, in invitingthe said candidate. However, the selection is not finalised andhence the Service Commission has assured that the mistake will berectified. Therefore on the basis of this mistake, it is notpossible to hold that the entire selection is vitiated.34. There is some force in the contention of the learnedSenior Counsel for the petitioners that the final result of thatcandidate was not withheld by the Service Commission even aftercoming to know of the mistake. It is stated in paragraph-19(i) ofthe counter affidavit filed by the Service Commission that themistake was noticed when Ponnuerusan appeared for oral test on3.1.2009. But it is contended that it was the last day of theinterview and hence it was not possible to call a substitute femalecandidate at the last minute. It was also stated by the learnedSenior Counsel appearing for the Service Commission that theInterview Card sent to the candidates did not indicate "male" or"female". Therefore there was no possibility of the members of theInterviewing Committee finding out that a male candidate had comein the place of a female candidate.35. But admittedly the mistake was noticed on 3.1.2009 whenthe candidate appeared for interview. Therefore the ServiceCommission could have at least indicated in the Website, at thetime of publishing the final results that his candidature iswithheld on account of the mistake. However, the failure of theService Commission to do so, as stated earlier, cannot vitiate theentire selection process.36. The contention that one of the candidates selected forinterview had not produced the No Objection Certificate, is noground to call the selection bad. The Application Form contains acolumn in Column No.24, where the candidates are required toindicate the particulars of their present and previous employment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Therefore if a candidate does not produce a No ObjectionCertificate at or after the interview from his employer, hisselection may be vitiated but not the entire process of selection.37. The last ground on which the main written examination isassailed is that the papers of 25 candidates who were declared bythe Expert Committee to be successful in the preliminaryexamination were valued separately and disqualified deliberately.But the Service Commission has stated that after the orders of thisCourt in the second batch of writ petitions, dated 13.8.2008, theExpert Committee was constituted in the last week of August 2008.The members of the Committee held sittings on various dates inSeptember and October 2008. The Minutes of the Committee were drawnon 5.11.2008 and the marks of those 125 writ petitioners in thepreliminary examination were finalised on 11.11.2008. It was onlythen that 25 candidates out of the total of 125 writ petitionerswere found to have qualified in the preliminary examination. Bythen, the first evaluation of the answer papers of the othercandidates in the main written examination had commenced. It wenton from 4.11.2008 to 19.11.2008. The second valuation was done from20.11.2008 to 1.12.2008 and the third valuation in respect of 20candidates had to be undertaken on 2.12.2008 and 4.12.2008. Thus,the Service Commission proceeded on a time schedule and hence theallegation that the answer papers of these 25 candidates werevalued separately with a view to failing them, has no basis. As amatter of fact, in the order dated 13.8.2008, passed in the secondbatch of writ petitions, the learned Judge had given a direction inparagraph-17(ii) of the judgment that the answer papers of finalexaminations taken by the writ petitioners should be keptseparately without referring for valuation, till the ExpertCommittee finalised the out come of the preliminary examination.38. Therefore none of the grounds of attack made by thepetitioners as against the validity of the main writtenexamination, can be accepted. As I have observed earlier, thecandidates who were declared successful in the preliminaryexamination by the Expert Committee, but who failed in the mainwritten examination, cannot also assail the preliminaryexamination, as they have passed on to the next stage. Thereforethe writ petitions filed by the second category of persons are alsoliable to fail.CATEGORY-3:39. This category consists of persons who came to Courtchallenging the out come of the preliminary examination, who werepermitted to write the main written examination and who were foundby the Expert Committee to have not qualified in the preliminaryexamination for admission to main written examination. Thereforetheir answer papers in the main written examination, have not beenvalued by the Service Commission. 40. The main ground of challenge of these petitioners to theultimate outcome is that the Expert Committee's answers were atvariance with the key answers. The Expert Committee also found afew questions to be wrong. Ultimately, the Expert Committee valuedthe answer papers of those 125 persons, who came up with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ previous batch of writ petitions, on the basis of the answers thatthey evolved. Consequently, some of the writ petitioners in thefirst batch have now got lesser marks than what they got in theoriginal valuation. In such circumstances, the petitionersbelonging to the third category, challenge the outcome. 41. Their challenge is resisted by the Service Commission onthe ground that by inviting an order for the appointment of anExpert Committee and for a fresh evaluation by such committee,these petitioners have submitted themselves to an order of Courtand that they cannot now go back on the order invited by them. 42. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitionerscited a few judgments of the Apex Court to contend that theirpresent writ petitions are not barred by res judicata and that theorders passed in the earlier batch of writ petitions to which theywere parties, did not finally determine their rights. Per contra,Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel for the Service Commission,invited my attention to several other decisions in support of hiscontention that the petitioners are not entitled to reopen theissues already concluded or ought and might have been concluded. 43. But I do not think it necessary to delve deep into theissue of res judicata and finality. The principle of res judicatais primarily based upon (i) the cause of action (ii) the mattersdirectly and substantially in issue and (iii) the matters might andought to have been made a ground of attack or defence. 44. Keeping the above principles in mind, now let us see whathad happened (i) before the previous batch of writ petitions (ii)in the previous batch of writ petitions and (iii) after theprevious batch of writ petitions. Admittedly, the ServiceCommission constituted an Expert Committee of 23 Experts, inpursuance of the orders of this Court. The petitioners in theprevious batches of writ petitions identified 40 questions and theExpert Committee went into (i) the questions, (ii) the key answers,(iii) the correct answers and (iv) the answers provided by thecandidates.45. The report of the Expert Committee produced before me,shows the following:-Question No.Original KeyAnswerExpert Committee's Answer7CC40AB45AA/B52DC57AB62CC68DA79BB https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Question No.Original KeyAnswerExpert Committee's Answer82CA87ALLA/D88CC89ALLCORRECT ANSWER NOTPROVIDED92CC97BB98ALLCORRECT ANSWER CODE NOTGIVEN IN THE CHOICES101CC102DTHE QUESTION IS WRONG103DB108DD111ALLC113BB114CC116AB123CC127CB130AD135DD137CC140BB144DB154AA157ALLCORRCT ANSWER NOTFURNISHED IN THE FOUROPTIONS169CC170BB173CA174AC176BMARKS MAY BE AWARDED TOTHOSE WHO HAVE ATTENDEDTHE QUESTION179BB186BAMONG THE 4 CHOICES OFANSWERS, B IS THE ANSWER199BBThe above table demonstrates that out of 40 questions disputed by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioners in the first batch of writ petitions, the ExpertCommittee found that the dispute with regard to at least 21questions, was justified, in the sense that the answers provided bythe Expert Committee were at variance with the original key answersor the questions themselves were found to be wrong. Therefore whatthe Expert Committee chose to do with these disputed questionsassumes significance. 46. Therefore let us now see what the Expert Committee haddone, after arriving at the correct answers to the disputedquestions. From the tabulation furnished by the Public ServiceCommission, the following picture would emerge:-(a) Some candidates (parties to the previous writ petitions),have secured more marks in the preliminary examination, than theywere declared to have secured earlier. But the marks did not reachthe cut off level. (b) Some candidates (parties to the previous writ petitions),have secured more marks in the preliminary examination, than theywere declared to have secured earlier. The marks touched the cutoff marks and their answer papers in the main written examinationwere evaluated.(c) Some candidates (parties to the previous writ petitions),have secured less marks in the preliminary examination, than theywere declared to have secured earlier. 47. It is seen from the statement furnished by the ServiceCommission that both sets of candidates, viz., those who securedmore marks and those who secured less marks, after the ExpertCommittee's evaluation, have suffered one common injury, solely onaccount of the Expert Committee applying answers which it thoughtto be the correct answers, despite the key answers being different.These candidates have been awarded marks for questions in respectof which the answers given by them tallied with the answersapproved by the Expert Committee. So far so good. But the ExpertCommittee also reduced the marks already awarded to thesecandidates, if the answers given by them tallied with the keyanswers and not with the answers provided by the Expert Committee.48. Therefore, the petitioners who have suffered a reductionin the marks, on account of the valuation of the Expert Committee,got a cause of action which was not only subsequent but alsodifferent from the cause of action on the basis of which they cameup with the previous batch of writ petitions. Whether the ExpertCommittee can reduce the marks only for those who approached theCourt, despite their answers tallying with the key answers, is anissue which was neither directly nor substantially in issue in theprevious batch of writ petitions. I am unable to find from theorders passed in both the previous batches of writ petitions, anyintention on the part of the learned Judges that the benefitconferred in the form of a reference to an Expert Committee wouldalso carry with it, a detriment, as two sides of the same coin. 49. As we have seen earlier, about 85,000 candidates https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ participated in the preliminary examination. The answer papers of125 candidates, who filed writ petitions alone were subjected to anevaluation by the Expert Committee. The answer papers of more thanabout 84,000 candidates, have been valued only on the basis of keyanswers. These 125 candidates who took the initiative to come toCourt, cannot be deprived of the marks that they would otherwise beentitled to, on the basis of the key answers, on par with theentire lot of 84,000 candidates. Since the Expert Committee hasreduced marks to some of these candidates, the present writpetitions filed by them, challenging the evaluation made by theExpert Committee, cannot be said to be barred by res judicata. 50. Now let us see, as test cases, as to how some of thesecandidates have suffered by the evaluation of the Expert Committee.(1) R.Govindasamy, the petitioner in W.P.No.29832 of 2008,belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, with Registration No.00118269,was awarded 151.5 marks in the first instance. After the evaluationby the Expert Committee, he had secured 154.5 marks. The cut offmarks for Scheduled Tribe candidates was 156. Thus he has narrowlymissed the selection in the preliminary examination, by just 1.5marks. Admittedly, there were 200 questions in the preliminaryexamination, each carrying 1.5 marks, with the total maximum marksfixed at 300. Therefore this candidate has lost the selection inthe preliminary examination by just 1.5 marks or to put italternatively, by one question.In the tabulation given by the Service Commission, it is seenthat for question No.111, he was awarded marks in the firstinstance. But the mark (1.5 marks) was reduced by the ExpertCommittee since his answer did not tally with the answer providedby the Expert Committee. If the Expert Committee had not reducedthe mark for question No.111, this petitioner would have beeneligible to have his main examination answer papers evaluated. (2) K.Dakshinamoorthy, the petitioner in W.P.No.30554 of 2008,bearing Registration No.00113063, had secured the same marks viz.,198, both in the first valuation and in the valuation by the ExpertCommittee. He belongs to the Backward Community for whom the cutoff marks was 201. In other words, he had missed the selection inthe preliminary examination by just 3 marks, which if convertedinto number of questions, would be just two questions.It is seen from the tabulation given by the TNPSC that theExpert Committee reduced marks for question Nos.57 and 174, thoughthe Expert Committee awarded marks for question Nos.130 and 173.Since marks were reduced for two questions, but awarded for twoother questions, his final tally stayed at 198. But the reductionof marks for question Nos.57 and 174, was without justification, asthe answers given by him tallied with the original key answers. (3) P.Mahalakshmi, petitioner in W.P.No.30740 of 2008,belonging to the Scheduled Caste (woman), with RegistrationNo.01012153, had secured 175.5 marks in the first valuation and 171marks after the evaluation by the Expert Committee. The cut offmarks for this category was 178.5. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ As in the previous cases, the Expert Committee has reducedmarks in respect of 5 questions viz., question Nos.57, 68, 103, 111and 174, despite her answers tallying with the original keyanswers. If the marks for these 5 questions had not been reduced,her total would have been increased by 7.5 marks (5 questions x1.5), taking into 178.5 (171 + 7.5).(4) M.Senthilkumar, the petitioner in W.P.Nos.30742 and 30743of 2008, belonging to the Backward Community with RegistrationNo.00168016, secured 198 marks in the first valuation, which gotreduced to 196.5 after the valuation by the Expert Committee. Thecut off marks for this category was 201. In other words, he missedthe selection in the preliminary examination by just 4.5 marks (orby 3 questions).In the tabulation sheet furnished by the Tamil Nadu PublicService Commission, it is seen that the marks already awarded tohim for question Nos.57, 68, 87, 103 and 111 were reduced by theExpert Committee, though the Committee awarded marks for 4 otherquestions. Out of the 5 questions for which marks were reduced bythe Expert Committee, 3 questions contained answers which talliedwith the original key answers. Therefore if marks had not beenreduced, this candidate would have been selected in the preliminaryexamination.(5) V.Balasubramaniam, the petitioner in W.P.No.30770 of 2008,belonging to the General category, with Registration No.00108372secured 205.5 marks in the first valuation, which got increased to208.5 after the valuation by the Expert Committee. The cut offmarks for this category was 210. In other words, he missed theselection in the preliminary examination by just 1.5 marks (or byone question).In the tabulation sheet furnished by the Tamil Nadu PublicService Commission, it is seen that the marks already awarded tohim for question Nos.40 and 57 were reduced, despite his answerstallying with the original key answers. If it had not been reduced,he would have secured 211.5, which is more than the cut of marks.(6) M.A.Ravi Varma, petitioner in W.P.No.30795 of 2008,belonging to the Scheduled Caste, with Registration No.00158071,secured 192 marks, both before and after the evaluation by theExpert Committee. But it is seen from the tabulation sheet that hewas awarded marks for 2 questions and reduced marks for 2questions, resulting in the total tally remaining the same. The cutoff marks for his category was 195 and he missed the selection by 3marks (2 questions).In the tabulation sheet furnished by the Service Commission,it is seen that the marks awarded to him for question Nos.111 and144, were reduced despite the finding of the Expert Committee thatquestion No.111 was a wrong question and for question No.144, hisanswer tallied with the key answer. Therefore the reduction ofmarks for two questions was improper. With these two questions, hewould have reached the cut off marks. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (7) D.Ganesh Babu, the petitioner in W.P.No.989 of 2009,belonging to the Backward Community, with Registration No.00116180,secured 196.5 in the first valuation and 192 marks after theevaluation by the Expert Committee. The cut off mark for hiscategory was 201. It is seen from the tabulation sheet furnished by the ServiceCommission that he was awarded marks for 3 questions, but the marksalready awarded for 6 questions got reduced. The marks alreadyawarded for question Nos.40, 57, 68, 103 and 111 ought not to havebeen cut, since his answers tallied with the key answers. Thereforeif the marks for these 5 questions had not been reduced, his tallywould have been 204, which is more than the cut off marks. 51. With the position emerging as above, the learned SeniorCounsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the entireselection process should be set at naught, in view of the fact that40 out of 200 questions became disputed questions and the disputewas found to be justified in respect of 21 out of those 40questions, in the light of the report of the Expert Committee.Apart from these 21 questions found by the Expert Committee to bewrong either by the questions themselves or by the key answersprovided thereto, the petitioners have found fault with the answersprovided by the Expert Committee itself in respect of a fewquestions. For example, question No.57 and the choices giventhereunder were as follows:-The Founder of the Newspaper "The Hindu" was :-A) S.Subramania IyerB) Kasturi Ranga IyengarC) S.SatyamurthyD) T.K.MadhavanThe Expert Committee chose the answer "Kasturi Ranga Iyengar",though the correct answer appears to be G.Subramania Iyer. TheService Commission attempted to justify the answer given by theExpert Committee on the ground of some source material and on thecontention that it was a weekly when it was founded by G.SubramaniaIyer and that as a newspaper it was founded by Kasturi RangaIyengar. 52. Therefore it is clear that a lot of questions were eitherdisputable or debatable. With a lot of candidates losing out in therace by very few marks, there is no doubt that these questions haveultimately played a very crucial role in either disqualifying manyof them or in qualifying many of them. Therefore I cannot rejectthe contention of the petitioners as thoroughly unjustified. TheService Commission was not, after all, conducting "kaun banegacrorepati", but was conducting a highly competitive examination forselection of candidates for Group-I services of the State. 53. But it is too late in the day to cancel the entireselection process, on this score. Even in the first batch of cases,the petitioners ought to have made appropriate prayers. Thepetitioners should have prayed for (i) the appointment of an ExpertCommittee just to go into the questions and choices given in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ preliminary examination (ii) identification of wrong questionsand/or wrong key answers and (iii) a revaluation of the answerpapers of all the participants in the preliminary examination. Sucha prayer would have resulted in the wrong questions being eschewedand the wrong answers being corrected. This process would haveplaced all the participants in a level playing field, with theanswer papers of all candidates being evaluated only in respect ofright questions together with right answers. But unfortunately, thepetitioners failed to seek such reliefs in the first round oflitigation. They were happy with the constitution of an ExpertCommittee and the examination of their grievances alone by theExpert Committee on an individual basis. Therefore the petitionerscannot now seek to cancel the entire selection process, on thebasis of (i) the finding by the Expert Committee in respect of 21questions and (ii) the answers of the Expert Committee alsobecoming debatable. 54. It is not on account of any sympathy for the ServiceCommission that I am unable to agree with the prayer of thepetitioners to cancel the selection. The first lap of the race wasrun by 85,000 candidates, out of whom more than about 1700 gotshort listed for the main event and about 172 are now waiting inthe wings with high hopes. The cancellation of the entire processwould be highly frustrating and demoralising for the whole lot ofcandidates, except perhaps for those who ran from Court to Court,apart from running the race. After all, those candidates have notcommitted any sin. It is only out of a concern for those unemployedlot that I do not wish to aggravate their agony by setting asidethe entire selection process and asking them to run the race allover again. 55. Though I cannot and I do not wish to set aside the entireselection process on account of 21 questions out of 200 questionsbeing found by the Expert Committee itself to be faulted, I cannotalso non-suit those belonging to the third category viz., personswho came to Court earlier and who were found by the ExpertCommittee to have not secured the cut off marks. As I havedemonstrated earlier, the third category of persons have sufferedat the hands of the Expert Committee, on account of the marks beingreduced in respect of questions for which their answers talliedwith the original key answers, but not with the answers decided bythe Expert Committee.56. Once these third category of candidates are found to havemade out a case, then the next question to be addressed is as towhat is the relief that could be granted to them. As found from thetabulation sheet given earlier, if the Expert Committee had notreduced marks for these candidates, they would have become eligibleto have their answer sheets in the main examination evaluated bythe examiners. This in my considered view, is the relief that theyare entitled to at the most. If upon valuation of their answerpapers in the main written examination, they are found to havequalified, they would then be entitled to be invited for the oralinterview. If not, they will also be out of the race. 57. Coming to the impleading petitions, it is seen that they https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ are filed by persons who had secured sufficiently good marks, so asto make it to the winning post. But unfortunately for them, theTamil Nadu Public Service Commission has not yet published thefinal list of selected candidates. The impleading petitionersbecame aware of the marks secured by them, through the Website ofthe Service Commission. This by itself had not conferred any rightupon them. It is well settled that even the inclusion of the nameof a person in the select list of candidates, does not confer aright upon him to be appointed. Therefore, the impleadingpetitioners, who have not yet been included in the select list ofcandidates, cannot seek to implead themselves in these writpetitions.58. Therefore, in fine, all the writ petitions andmiscellaneous petitions are disposed of, on the following lines:-(i) The writ petitions W.P.(MD)Nos. 11731 of 2008, 12390 of2008 and 63 of 2009 and W.P.Nos. 30738 of 2008, 30739 of 2008,30744 of 2008, 450 of 2009 and 787 of 2009 filed by candidates whohave come up for the first time before Court, irrespective ofwhether their challenge is to the preliminary examination or themain written examination, are dismissed. No costs.(ii) The writ petitions W.P.Nos. 29831 of 2008, 30794 of 2008,30796 of 2008, 30798 of 2008 and 3130 of 2009 filed by candidateswho came to Court earlier, who wrote the main written examinationby virtue of the orders of this Court and who got qualified in thepreliminary examination by the evaluation of the Expert Committee,but who failed in the main written examination, are also dismissed.W.P.Nos. 30770 and 30771 of 2008 are also dismissed in so far as 2petitioners namely, M.Selvaraj and V.Karthikeyan are concerned. Nocosts.(iii) The writ petitions W.P.Nos. 29832 of 2008, 30554 of2008, 30740 of 2008, 30742 of 2008, 30743 of 2008, 30795 of 2008,30900 of 2008, 989 of 2009, 3131 of 2009, W.P.(MD) No.231of 2009filed by candidates belonging to category-3, namely those who cameto Court earlier and who are now failed by the Expert Committee inthe preliminary examination, are allowed partly to the extentindicated hereunder. W.P.Nos.30770 and 30771 of 2008 are alsoallowed to the same extent in so far as the petitionersV.Balasubramaniam, C. Sanghu and V.Arivukkanan, alone areconcerned. That is, there will be a limited direction to the TamilNadu Public Service Commission to evaluate the answer papers ofthese candidates in the main written examination, in the samemanner as they have done for others. If after such evaluation, anyof these candidates are found to have qualified in the main writtenexamination, they may also be called for oral interview. It isneedless to say that if any of them get selected ultimately in theoral interview, his/her name shall be included in the select listof candidates. The Public Service Commission is directed tocomplete the process of valuation of the answer papers of thesecandidates in the main written examination, within a period of 15days. Thereafter, the oral interview shall be held within a weekthereof, if any of them is selected in the evaluation. Within afurther period of one week, the final list of selected candidates https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ may be released by the Service Commission. The benefit of thisorder is also restricted only to the third category of candidatesin the present batch of writ petitions alone and the benefit ofthis order shall not be available to the remaining candidates whocame earlier but who have not come now to Court, since they areguilty of delay and laches and of allowing things to drift away. (iv) All the impleading petitions are dismissed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.SvnTo1.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai-2.2.The Chief Secretary, Govt of TamilNadu, Secretariate, Chennai-9.3.The Secretary to Government, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.4.The Controller of Examinations, TamilNadu Public Service Commission, Govt.Estate, Chennai-2.+ 1 CC To Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, Advocate SR NO.20229+ 1 CC To Mr.S.Mani, Advocate SR NO.20020+ 1 CC To M/s.Row & Reddy, Advocate SR NO.19272+ 1 CC To M/s.C.N.G.Ezhil Arasi, Advocate SR NO.19788+ 1 CC To Mr.Sathish Parasaran,Advocate SR NO.197183 CC To Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen Kumar, Advocate, SR NO.19844 to 19846 Common Order in 29831, 29832 , 30554, 30738 to 30740,30742 to 30744, 30770, 30771, 30794 to 30796, 30798, 30900 of 2008, 450, 787, 989, 3130 and 3131 of 2009 And W.P.(MD) Nos.11731 and 12390 of 2008, 63 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and 231 of 2009kji & Rsi(co)pmk,gsk,tp