IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date: 23-12-2010 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN Writ Appeal Nos.1719 to 1739 and 1602 to 1636 and 1933 to 1958 Of 2010 1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Director General of Police/Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Director General of Police, Dr.Radha Krishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. ... Appellants in all Was. Vs. 1.A.Eswaramoorthy 2.R.Arjun Kumar ... Respondents in W.A.No.1719/2010 G.Venkatesan ... Respondent in W.A.No.1720/2010 K.Hemanth Kumar ... Respondent in W.A.No.1721/2010 S.Rethinakumar ... Respondent in W.A.No.1722/2010 P.Shanmugam ... Respondent in W.A.No.1723/2010 S.Thiruvengadam ... Respondent in W.A.No.1724/2010 C.Suresh Kumar ... Respondent in W.A.No.1725/2010 R.Harikrishnan ... Respondent in W.A.No.1726/2010 S.Vijaya ... Respondent in W.A.No.1727/2010 B.Santhosh Kumar ... Respondent in W.A.No.1728/2010 C.Shivashankar ... Respondent in W.A.No.1729/2010 R.Sundararajan ... Respondent in W.A.No.1730/2010 S.Gopi ... Respondent in W.A.No.1731/2010 R.Karunagaran ... Respondent in W.A.No.1732/2010 A.Sathiya Seelan ... Respondent in W.A.No.1733/2010 V.Prabhu Dass ... Respondent in W.A.No.1734/2010 N.Saravanan ... Respondent in W.A.No.1735/2010 M.Shakthi Kumaran ... Respondent in W.A.No.1736/2010 G.Gunasekaran ... Respondent in W.A.No.1737/2010 N.Sivakumar ... Respondent in W.A.No.1738/2010 R.Alex ... Respondent in W.A.No.1739/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.N.Senthil Kumar 2.R.Arjun Kumar ... Respondents in W.A.No.1602/2010 S.Kannan ... Respondent in W.A.No.1603/2010 1.M.Arumugam 2.M.Mariappan 3.G.Sankaranarayanan ... Respondents in W.A.No.1604/2010 T.Rajalingam ... Respondent in W.A.No.1605/2010 E.Tamilmaran ... Respondent in W.A.No.1606/2010 I.Ramachandran ... Respondent in W.A.No.1607/2010 M.A.Kamalmohan ... Respondent in W.A.No.1608/2010 V.Udayakumar ... Respondent in W.A.No.1609/2010 J.Jayakumar ... Respondent in W.A.No.1610/2010 M.P.Murugan ... Respondent in W.A.No.1611/2010 R.Ponnusamy ... Respondent in W.A.No.1612/2010 C.P.Saravanan ... Respondent in W.A.No.1613/2010 M.Packiaraja ... Respondent in W.A.No.1614/2010 T.Vanavamalai ... Respondent in W.A.No.1615/2010 M.Kamal Dev ... Respondent in W.A.No.1616/2010 M.Suresh Kumar ... Respondent in W.A.No.1617/2010 M.Saravanan ... Respondent in W.A.No.1618/2010 P.Sivakumar ... Respondent in W.A.No.1619/2010 J.Vedamanickam ... Respondent in W.A.No.1620/2010 K.Jeeva ... Respondent in W.A.No.1621/2010 M.Uma ... Respondent in W.A.No.1622/2010 D.Thangamani ... Respondent in W.A.No.1623/2010 M.Kesavan ... Respondent in W.A.No.1624/2010 A.Vijayakumar ... Respondent in W.A.No.1625/2010 B.Kumar ... Respondent in W.A.No.1626/2010 M.Thillai Govindarajaperumal ...Respt.in W.A.No.1627/2010 M.Mariappan ... Respondent in W.A.No.1628/2010 A.Pugazhenthi ... Respondent in W.A.No.1629/2010 S.Manoharan ... Respondent in W.A.No.1630/2010 B.Sivaraj ... Respondent in W.A.No.1631/2010 C.K.Sundaramoorthy ... Respondent in W.A.No.1632/2010 M.Arul Manimaran ... Respondent in W.A.No.1633/2010 M.Balan ... Respondent in W.A.No.1634/2010 G.Balamurugan ... Respondent in W.A.No.1635/2010 A.G.Chandrasekaran ... Respondent in W.A.No.1636/2010 E.Raj Prabhu ... Respondent in W.A.No.1933/2010 J.Arul Prakash ... Respondent in W.A.No.1934/2010 S.Giri ... Respondent in W.A.No.1935/2010 K.Muniraj ... Respondent in W.A.No.1936/2010 G.Elaiyaraja ... Respondent in W.A.No.1937/2010 N.Venkatesan ... Respondent in W.A.No.1938/2010 R.Subramanian ... Respondent in W.A.No.1939/2010 I.Subburam ... Respondent in W.A.No.1940/2010 K.Prabakaran ... Respondent in W.A.No.1941/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ P.Pon Moses ... Respondent in W.A.No.1942/2010 K.Sivakumar ... Respondent in W.A.No.1943/2010 S.Sugavanan ... Respondent in W.A.No.1944/2010 P.Boopesh ... Respondent in W.A.No.1945/2010 A.Kannan ... Respondent in W.A.No.1946/2010 V.Gunasekaran ... Respondent in W.A.No.1947/2010 I.Shankar ... Respondent in W.A.No.1948/2010 S.Thanigasalam ... Respondent in W.A.No.1949/2010 K.Subramanian ... Respondent in W.A.No.1950/2010 C.Shankar Ganesh ... Respondent in W.A.No.1951/2010 M.Arunachalam ... Respondent in W.A.No.1952/2010 G.Gopinath ... Respondent in W.A.No.1953/2010 A.Prince Barnabas ... Respondent in W.A.No.1954/2010 C.Duraipandian ... Respondent in W.A.No.1955/2010 A.Ayyakumar ... Respondent in W.A.No.1956/2010 M.Sudalaikannu ... Respondent in W.A.No.1957/2010 G.Prakash ... Respondent in W.A.No.1958/2010 Prayer: This Writ Appeals are preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Appeal, against the common orders dated 4.11.2009 made in W.P.Nos.4509,4510,4511,4512,4513,4514,4515,4516,4517,45187411,74 12,7413,7414,7415,7416,7417,7418,8874,8938 and 9181 of 2009 and 11224,11807,12032,12870,13130,13367,14463,14487,14888, 15667, 17196 to 17198,17472, 18226,13490 to 13497, 10752 to 10759,10761 to 10764, and 15874,18227 to 18232,18351,18538,18539,18659,19469 to 19473,19510,19587,19821,20280 to 20285 and 20470 of 2009 respectively. Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writs of Mandamus, (I) directing the 2nd Respondent to add (a) one mark (in WP.Nos.4509 to 4518/09, 7418, 10754/09, 10762/09) (b) two marks (in WP.Nos.7411 to 7417/09, 10758, 10754, 10764, 13493, 13495, 13496 of 2009) (c) three marks (in WP.Nos.10753, 10756, 17198, 19470, 19471, 19472, 19473, 19510, 20285 of 2009) (d) four marks (in WP.19587/09) to the petitioner for recruitment of Sub Inspector of Police (Men - Department Quota) 2006 and further direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police under 20% department candidate quota and fix the appropriate place in the selection and grant all consequential service and monetary benefits (in WP.Nos.4509 to 4518/09, 7411 to 7418, 10753, 10754, 10756, 10758, 10759, 10764, 13493, 13495, 13496, 17198, 19470 to 19473, 19510, 20285/09, 19587 of 2009 and 10762/09) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (II) directing to add (a) one mark (in WP.Nos.10755, 10762, 12870, 14463, 14888, 18231, 19469/09) (b) two marks (in WP.10752, 10757, 10760, 10761, 11224, 13490 to 13492, 13494, 13497, 14487, 18228 & 18229/2009) (c) three marks (in WP.10763/09, 20280/09 to 20283/09) to the petitioner for recruitment of recruitment of Sub-Inspector of Police (Men-80%) open Quota 2006 and further direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police under 80% open candidates quota and fix the appropriate place in the selection and grant all consequential service and monetary benefits (in WP.Nos.10755, 10762, 12870, 14463, 14888, 18231, 19469, 10752, 10757, 10761, 10763, 11224, 13490 to 13492, 13494, 13497, 14487, 18228 & 18229/09, 20280 to 20283/09) (III) directing the 2nd respondent to produce OMR marks statement and add (a) two marks (in WP.No.18230/09 (b) three marks (in WP.Nos.18659, 20284, 20470/09) to the petitioner for recruitment of Sub-Inspector of Police for (men - open categories) 2006 and further direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police under open categories quota and fix the appropriate place in the selection and grant all consequential service and monetary benefits (in WP.Nos.18230 of 2009, 18659, 20284 & 20470/09) (IV) directing the 2nd respondent to add the non-awarded marks to the petitioner for recruitment of Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 2005-2006 under 80% open candidates quota and fix the appropriate place in the selection and grant all consequential service and monetary benefits (in WP.Nos.18351/09) V. directing the 3rd respondent herein to award (a) one mark to the petitioner Ref.No.1600414 (in WP.No.8938/09) (b) Two marks to the petitioner's Reg.No.1100710 (in WP.8874/09) for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 2006 and consequently direct the respondents herein to appoint the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 2006 and place the petitioner in each of the petitions in the appropriate place in the list of selected candidates with all consequential service and benefits (in WP.Nos.8938 & 8874/09). VI. directing the Respondents select and appoint the petitioners as sub-Inspector of Police under the direct Recruitment quota in WP.12032/09, 18538,18539, 17472/09. directing the 2nd respondent to accept choice A as the correct answer for question No.44 falling under Part A in the written examination held for the year 2006-07 for the selection of Sub- inspector of Police, grant one additional mark to the petitioner for the said written examination together with all follow-up orders enabling the petitioner to be appointed for the post of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sub-Inspector of Police by the 3rd respondent on par with the 2006-07 batch mates (in WP.11807 of 2009) VIII.directing the 2nd respondent to add one mark in WP.18226,18227/09 to the petitione for recruitment of sub- Inspector of police (10% wards Quota ) 2006 an further direct the respondents to select the appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector of police uner 10% wards Quota and fix the appropirate place in the selection and grant all consequential service and monetary benfits. (in W.P.18226,18227 & 15874/09) IX. directing the 2nd respondent to add two marks in respect of the disputed question and 1 mark for Form-II certificate and 2 marks for NSS Certificates to the petitioner for recruitment of Sub-Inspector of Police (Men-department Quota)(Men-80% open Quota) 2006 and further direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police under 20% and 80% respectively department and open candidates quota and fix the appropriate place in the selection and grant all consequential service and monetary benefits.(in WP.17196 &17197/09) X. directing the 2nd respondent to modify the selection list in respect of in selection conducted to the post of sub inspector in 2006 consequent upon the verfication add one mark awarded to the wrong answers and furher direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner of sub-Inspector of police Under department quota and fix the appropriate place in the selection and monetary benefits.(W.P.18232/09). XII directing the third respondent herein to award two marks to the petitioner (Reg.No.1600486) for question Numbers 38 and 44 of the Written Test to the selection to the post of Sub- Inspector of Police for the year 2006 and and place him in the appropriate place in the list of selected candidates with all consequential and monetary benefits. (in WP No.15667/2009) XIII directing the respondents herein to award two additional marks to the petitioner (Reg.No.2900401) for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police for the year 2006 and consequently direct the respondents herein to post of the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police Taluk Police, taking into account the total marks as 76+2=78 in view of the correct answers in Question numbers 38 and 44 of the written test and place him in the appropriate place of the list of selected candidates with all consequential service and monetary benefits. (in WP No.9181/2009) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (XI) directing the 1st respondent to add three marks to the petitioners over all total in the process of recruitment of Sub- Inspector of Police-2006 and further direct the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police within the recruitment under MBC open men category and to fix and appropriate place of seniority in the Taluk Police selection by granting all consequential service and monetary benefits. (in WP 19821/2009) (XIV) directing the second respondent to accept choice A- as the correct answer for question No.44 falling under Part A in the written examination held for the year 2006-2007 for the selection of Sub-Inspector of Police grant on additional mark to the petitioner for the said written examination together with all follow-up orders enabling the petitioner to be appointed for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police by the 3rd respondent on par with the 2006-07 batch mates for all pruposes within the time frame. (in WP 13130/2009) (XV)directing the respondents to rectify the error committed in the written test Sub-Inspectors Recruitment 2006 by awarding 2 additional marks to the petitioner and consequently select and appoint the petitioner as Sub Inspector of Police under the M.B.C category and impart training to the petitioner. (in WP No.13367/2009) For Appellants :Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General assisted by Mrs.Sneha Govt.Advocate For Respondents:Mr.Venkatramani,Senior Counsel 1602, 1611, 1933, 1943 for Mr.Muthappan in W.A.Nos.1945, 1947, 1948, 1949 Mr.C.Selvaraj, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Athiveera Ramapandian in W.A.Nos. 1604, 1615, 1941 & 1942/10 Mr.K.S.Viswanathan for Mr.S.Sivakumar in W.A.Nos. 1719 to 1736/10, 1625 to 1630/10, 1617 to 1624, 1608, 1609, 1612 to 1614, 1944, 1946, 1947, 1952, 1953, 1955 & 1958/10 Mr.Ravi Anandhapadmanabhan W.A.1603 & 1606/10 Mr.G.S.Gnanasambandan for G.Srinivasan 1605, 1610, 1616, 1619, 1934 to 1936, 1938, 1939, 1943/10 Mr.V.Manohar W.A. 1951/10 Mr.P.I.Thirumoorthy W.A. 1940/10 M/s.G.Bala and Daisy 1611, 1738, 1739 & 1737/10 Mr.A.Jeenasenan W.A. 1617/10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C O M M O N J U D G M E N T N.KIRUBAKARAN,J. These Writ Appeals arise out of a common order passed in writ petitions Nos.4509 of 2009 etc. batch dated 4.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge by which directions were issued to prepare a list of un-selected candidates, who answered three disputed questions in the written examination conducted for selection of Sub-Inspector of Police, by virtue of notification dated 18.7.2006, which was issued to fill up 682 vacancies. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners and respondents in the above writ petitions are referred in the writ appeals also as petitioners and respondents respectively. 2. Brief facts are as follows: The second respondent Board issued a notification dated 18.7.2006 for selection of 682 candidates for the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Written examination was conducted on 20-5- 2007 and provisional selection list was announced on 20.12.2007. The un-selected candidates in the examination, questioned the provisional selection before this court contending that: 1) Quota fixed for each category was not followed, 2) Written test was not properly conducted, 3) Answers were not published 4) Marks were not properly given, 5)Marks were not published in the internet, 6)waiting list of candidates were not published, 7)Service Commission did not follow the established procedures in the process of selection due to show transparency. On appreciation of the facts, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on 20.11.2007 upholding the selection, which was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.194 of 2007 batch on 28.3.2008. 3. Subsequently the candidates approached under RTI Act seeking information regarding questions and answers and answer sheets and they came to know that marks were awarded for answering wrong key answers and marks were not given inspite of answering properly. The disputed questions are 11,38 and 44 which are as follows: 11. Greenhouse effect is caused by A) Oxygen depletion B) Ozone Layer depletion C) Hydrogen reduction D) Greenery reduction Question No.38 is as follows: What percentage (%) of human body weight is water? A) 55 B) 65 C) 70 D) 80 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Question No.44 is as follows: 44 Free India's first Governor-General was A) Mountbatten B) Rajaji C) Dr.Zakir Hussain C) Dr.Radhakrishnan 4. For question No.11, the key answer given was (B) Ozone layer depletion whereas the correct answer is (D) Greenery reduction. For question No.38, the key answer given was "C-70", whereas all questions were found to be correct. For question No.44, the key answer given was "D"-Rajaji, whereas the right answer was "A"-Mount Batten. The aforesaid position was admitted by the second respondent board in the reply given under Right to Information Act. 5. Therefore based on the information obtained under Rights to Information Act, the petitioners approached this court seeking a direction to the respondents to add the marks in view of wrong key answers and wrong valuation and consider them for selection. 6. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the respondents admitted mistakes in the key answers, non- awarding of marks to the candidates who wrote correct answers and awarding of marks to wrong key answers and therefore marks for the correct key answers are required to be given to the petitioners and based on which, the petitioners are to be considered for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. Secondly it was contended that problem started because of wrong/mistake committed by the Respondent-Board. Thirdly the respondents themselves were not aware of mistakes committed by the board and only after ascertaining the facts under Rights to Information Act, they approached the court. They also contended that supernumerary posts could be created and based on the revaluation the petitioners could be accommodated. 7. On behalf of the respondents, it was argued that the matter already attained finality in the earlier writ proceedings, that resjudicata is attracted and that there was delay and latches on the part of the petitioners to approach the court and therefore no relief could be granted. 8. The learned Single Judge after thoroughly going through the records and appreciating the contentions, held as follows: a) The respondents admitted the mistakes in the key answers. b) The mistakes committed by board cannot be employed against the un-selected candidates. c) Petitioners were not aware of the wrong key answers till they got information under Right to Information Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ d) Resjudicata would not arise, when questions involved in the writ petition were not specifically raised and considered earlier. e) There is no delay on the part of the petitioners as the respondents themselves did not verify correctness of answers even after the examination, which is evident from first appellant's letter dated 30.1.2009. f) The respondents cannot take advantage of their own wrong and contend laches is on the part of the petitioner and issued following directions: "24 Hence after taking into consideration of the above said factual and legal position, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the following directions will have to be issued: (i) The respondents are directed to prepare a list of all the un-selected candidates who have answered question No.11 with option No.(D), Question No.38 with all the answers and question No.44 with option No.(A) and grant marks accordingly. (ii) The respondents are directed to take the cut-off marks fixed for the selection made in the written examination on the basis for respective categories for the consideration of the non-selected candidates who would get higher marks in pursuant to the directions given by this Hon'ble court. (iii) The respondents are directed to conduct vivo-voce Test for those candidates who come within the cut-off marks in pursuant to the granting of higher marks in the written examination. (iv) The respondents are directed to take into consideration of the marks obtained in the interview for those unsuccessful candidates who have already attended the interview and who would be getting additional marks. (v) The respondents are directed to consider the candidates who would become eligible to be selected in view of the directions of this Hon'ble Court by adding the marks due to them in the available vacancies, in the respective categories, as on the last date of the interview conducted. (vi) For the future examinations, the second respondent is directed to verify the key answers immediately after the written examination is over and published the same in the web site of the second respondent as well as in any one of the news papers. (vii) The second respondent is also directed to publish the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination after the evaluation of the written examination in the web site of the second respondent. (viii)In so far as the petitioner in W.P.Nos.9181 of 2009 is concerned, the respondents are directed to consider the seniority of the petitioner based upon the revised marks by taking into consideration of the marks to be awarded for the right answers in accordance with law." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the respondents are before this court. Learned Advocate General raised the following contentions: He submitted that two types of petitioner are before this court namely a) the candidates, who were parties to the earlier writ proceedings. b) other candidates, who approached this court for the first time. 1) As far as first group of petitioners are concerned, he submitted that the entire selection process was challenged by them earlier and it attained finality and therefore constructive rejudicata applies. 2) As far as new candidates are concerned, they are guilty of latches as they approached the court belatedly after passage of two years and discretionary remedy of writ cannot be granted to them in view of failure to ascertain their rights in time. 3) All the contentions were raised in the earlier proceedings and they were negatived against the Petitioners/candidates. Even if the contentions were not specifically raised, they were decided as a whole by upholding entire selection process. 10. Learned Advocate General further submitted that: 1) The entire processes of selection was already over; 2) The selected candidates were sent for training in batches and they were appointed already; 3)When the selection processes was already over, there was no necessity for re-consideration by way of re-valuation. 4) If the exercise as per the order of the learned single judge is to be done, it will unsettle the selection which was completed; 5) It is not possible to create supernumerary posts and appoint candidates based on revaluation; 6) Subsequent vacancies cannot be filled up with the candidates who participated in the earlier selection process, which was already completed; 7)Filling up of vacancies over and above the vacancies advertised would be against the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8)There was no suppression of material facts before the Court and there was no fraud committed by the respondents. 9)If at all any mistake was committed, it was only a bonafide and unintended mistake and nothing could be attributed against the officials. 10)The verification of answers was not taken to avoid leakage of question papers. He relied upon the following judgements in support of his contentions. 1) State of Orissa v. Harapriya Bisoi,(2009) 12 SCC 378. 2) Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Others v. State Of Orissa & Others AIR 2010 SC 706. 3)U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh,(2006) 11 SCC 464. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4)Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport,(2010) 8 SCC 467. 5) S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar,(2004) 7 SCC 166. 6) P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., (1975) 1 SCC 152. 7)A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala,(2007) 2 SCC 725. 8) Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), (1986) 1 SCC 100. 9) Heena Kausar v. Competent Authority,(2008) 14 SCC 724. 11. On the other hand Mr.Venkatramani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that most of the petitioners could not be selected by one or two marks or who missed the selection because of seniority in age when their marks were the same as that of selected candidates. He made the following contentions: 1) Admittedly there were wrong key answers. 2) Marks of each category for selection were not given. 3) Petitioners were deprived of marks and selection though answering questions rightly. 4) Arbitrariness and discrimination vitiated the selection processes. 5) In view of the admission made by the government there cannot be any delay. Admittedly when the mistake was committed by the authorities, there could not be any laches. He relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2001 (12) SCC 259. 12. Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Senior counsel appearing for some of the petitioners submitted that his parties approached this court only in 2009 after ascertaining the details under Right to Information Act. The writ petitions were filed on 6.9.2009. He raised the following contentions: 1) Mere selection would not confer any right on the selected candidates. 2) When the issue was pending before this Court, there was no delay. 3) After getting the details under RTI Act, the petitioners approached this court rightly and there is no delay. 4) Illegality cannot be perpetuated that too on technicality. 5) Petitioners have legitimate expectation of selection. He relied upon the following judgements: 1) State of Orissa v. Prajnaparamita Samanta, (1996) 7 SCC 106. 2) Sandeep Singh v. State of Haryana,(2002) 10 SCC 549. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3) Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg,(2005) 13 SCC 749. 4) K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan, (1999) 4 SCC 526. 5) State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma,(2006) 3 SCC 330 13. Mr.Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in 51 cases made the following submissions: 1)There is no scope for application of rejudicata if original order sanctified illegality. 2)More over the key answers were not given in the original proceedings and no opportunity to controvert the key answers was given. 3) No proper and fair opportunity was given in the earlier proceedings regarding written examination. 4) Orders obtained fraudulently cannot be a rejudicata in view of Section 44 of Evidence Act. 5) Inspite of opportunity to produce the key answers in the earlier proceedings, the respondent/ government deliberately not produced the details. 6)Silence on the part of the government would amount to fraud. 7)There is no delay, as the petitioners were waiting list candidates who waited for call letters. He relied upon the following judgements: 1)Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) v. Mahant Ram Niwas, (2008) 11 SCC 753. 2)Devilal Modi v. STO,(1965) 1 SCR 686 3)Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, (1999) 5 SCC 590. 4)Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, (1970) 1 SCC 613. 5)United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 581. 6)Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) v. Mahant Ram Niwas, (2008) 11 SCC 753. 7)Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board, (1999) 5 SCC 590. 8)Krishna Chandra Pallai vs. Union of India AIR 1992 Orissa 261 (F.B.) 9)S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath and others,(1994) 1 SCC 1. 14. Mr.Ravi Anandhapadpanabhan, appearing for the petitioners in W.A.Nos.1603 and 1606 of 2010 submitted that as the key