IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :17.02.2010 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W. P. No.44744 of 2006 (T) O.A.No.5775 of 1999 D.Vijayakumar ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Under Secretary The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Government Estate Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Agriculture Chepauk Chennai. - 600 005. ...Respondents Prayer: This Writ Petition came to be numbered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of transfer of O.A.No.5775 of 1999 from the file of the Tamil Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the record relating to the order of the first respondent dated 06.05.1999 issued in the Ref.No.Memo No.507/DTD-G/99 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.Muthukumar For Respondent1 : Mr.S.Shivashanmugam Govt. Advocate For Respondent 2: Mr. Baskaran O R D E R This writ petition is filed to to call for the record relating to the order of the first respondent dated 06.05.1999 issued in the Ref.No.Memo No.507//99 and quash the same. 2. The petitioner, an agricultural officer, challenges the order of the first respondent withholding the result and invalidating the answer sheet in respect of the test conducted on 30.12.1998 at Thiruvallur centre viz., Vidyalaya Metriculation Higher Secondary School, Thiruvallur. As per the impugned order, all the candidates, who appeared for the test in that center indulged in mass copying and that has been reported by the competent authority and accepted in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ impugned proceedings. The petitioner challenges the impugned order stating that candidates were allowed to use the book and therefore, the question of copying does not arise. 3. Reply affidavit has been filed stating that the authority found that all the candidates, who appeared for the examination in the above said school have answered question Nos. 5 and 6 wrongly in the same manner. The authority on verification conducted informed that the candidates indulged in mass copying. The department, taking into consideration the conduct of all the candidates, who had indulged in mass copying at the said center withheld the publication of their results. It is stated so in paragraph 5 of the reply affidavit by the Secretary,Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 4. In view of the stand taken in the reply affidavit that the publication of the results has been withheld in respect of all the candidates, who appeared in the center after proper inspection, the petitioner cannot claim a different treatment. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot complain that he has been singled out and his result alone has been withheld. In view of the above, this Court is unable to find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar ra To 1. The Under Secretary The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Government Estate Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Agriculture Chepauk Chennai. - 600 005. WP No. 44744 of 2006 RB {CO} TP/4.3.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/