High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD)No.17701 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 01.07.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGHW.P.(MD)No.17701 of 2025andW.M.P.(MD)No.13517 of 2025M.Dhanapriya ... Petitioner -vs-1.Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai - 03.2.The Controller of Examination, TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai - 03.... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to conduct re-examination of the TNPSC Group I Preliminary Examination, 2025 for the petitioner under Person with Disability (PwD category) and consider the petitioner under the PwD category for all subsequent stages including TNPSC Group I Mains Examination 2025 and interview. For Petitioner : Mr.M.K.Sachin RahulFor Respondents: Mr.J.Anand Kumar Standing Counsel____________Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.17701 of 2025ORDERThis Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct a re-examination of the TNPSC Group I Preliminary Examination, 2025 for the petitioner under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category and consequently, consider the petitioner under the PwD category for all further stages of the selection process, including the TNPSC Group I Main Examination, 2025 and the interview.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a law graduate from the Tamil Nadu National Law University, Tiruchirappalli and a person with 80% benchmark disability (Muscular Dystrophy), duly recognized under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The petitioner applied for the TNPSC Group I Preliminary Examination, 2025 under the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category and was duly exempted from the examination fee, as reflected in the TNPSC application system, thereby confirming her categorization under PwD. However, on the date of examination, i.e., 15.06.2025, the petitioner was erroneously treated as a General category candidate at the examination centre, resulting in the denial of various mandatory accommodations provided ____________Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.17701 of 2025under law and TNPSC's own guidelines, namely:-(a) Denial of the mandatory additional one-hour compensatory time, in violation of Clause 1.9.2.4 of Annexure IV of the TNPSC Guidelines.(b) Non-allotment of a ground-floor examination room, despite the petitioner's wheelchair dependency, in violation of Clause 1.10.2.(c) Being made to write the examination in an open veranda without adequate seating facilities, causing extreme physical discomfort and mental anguish.(d) Effective reduction in writing time to 2.5 hours instead of the entitled 3 hours, due to confusion and delays caused by the respondent authorities.3. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the respondents on the very next day seeking redress, but no response or remedial action has been taken thus far. The above actions and omissions on the part of the respondents constitute a serious infringement of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of ____________Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.17701 of 2025India and a direct violation of Section 31 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandates equal opportunity in education and employment-related processes. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to conduct a re-examination for the petitioner under the PwD category and consider her for all subsequent stages of the TNPSC Group I selection process under the same category.4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was duly registered for the TNPSC Group I Preliminary Examination, 2025 and had been allotted an examination centre based on the details furnished by her in the application form.5. It is further submitted that the TNPSC had issued clear instructions in the notification regarding the obligation of PwD candidates to ensure submission of proper documentation, including disability certificates and requests for scribe or compensatory time, well in advance. If any discrepancies occurred at the examination centre, the same cannot be attributed to the Commission.____________Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.17701 of 20256. The learned Standing Counsel also contends that large-scale logistical arrangements were made for the conduct of the examination across the State, involving thousands of candidates. Isolated inconveniences, while regrettable, cannot be a ground for re-examination, particularly, in the absence of any mala fide intention or systemic failure on the part of the Commission. It is further submitted that the petitioner had not availed of the grievance redressal mechanism prior to the date of the exam and approached the Court only post facto, which indicates an afterthought rather than a pre-examination concern.7. The learned Standing Counsel strongly opposed the prayer for re-examination, submitting that once an examination is concluded, it is a settled principle of law that higher courts should exercise great restraint and avoid interfering in the evaluation or re-conduct of such exams, unless there is overwhelming evidence of gross illegality, arbitrariness or fraud, none of which are present in the instant case.8. Upon hearing the learned counsel on both sides and perusing the records, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the conduct of the TNPSC Group I ____________Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.17701 of 2025Preliminary Examination, 2025. While the inconvenience caused to the petitioner is unfortunate, the alleged administrative lapses do not, in the considered view of this Court, warrant a direction for re-examination, especially in the absence of systemic irregularities or mala fide conduct on the part of the respondents.9. It is a well-settled principle that Courts must exercise caution and judicial restraint in matters relating to public examinations. Once an examination has been conducted, the Courts should be slow to interfere, except in cases involving widespread injustice or violation of fundamental principles.10. In the present case, the petitioner's grievance appears to stem from isolated logistical shortcomings at the examination centre. These, while regrettable, do not amount to legal infirmities sufficient to nullify the examination process. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. NCC : Yes / No 01.07.2025Index : Yes / No smn2____________Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.17701 of 2025To:-1.The Secretary to Government, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai - 03.2.The Controller of Examination, TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai - 03.____________Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.17701 of 2025VIVEK KUMAR SINGH , J. smn2W.P.(MD)No.17701 of 202501.07.2025____________Page 8 of 8