IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.02.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.26965 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 R.Dharmalingam ... Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Rep. By its Secretary, Omanthurar Government Estate, Chennai – 600 002. ... Respondents PRAYER:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent vide Memo A.No.352241QD-E1/09 culminating in its order dated 3.1.2009 quash the same and direct the second respondent to re-evaluate the petitioner's answer sheet for the subject of General knowledge and General Tamil Written by him with the Register No. 02505192 in Group-IV SERVICES SPECIAL COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION-2007 held by the second respondent on 17.2.2008 and award proper marks. For petitioner : Mr.N.Rajan For Respondents : Mr.A.Arumugam,Spl.G.P. For R1 Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi for R2 O R D E R The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the order dated 03.01.2009 passed by the second respondent – TNPSC in response to his letters dated 18.07.2008 and 11.12.2008. By the impugned order, the second respondent had informed the petitioner that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner's first letter was received by them after verification of certificates of the selected candidates. Since the letter was sent belatedly, no action will be taken on the basis of the request made by the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner was he was appointed as a Junior Assistant on contract basis on 04.07.2003 and was posted to work in the Commercial Tax Department. When applications were called for by a notification dated 06.12.2007 for Special Competitive Examination among those temporary candidates, the petitioner had also sent his application. The examination comprised of two papers i.e. General Knowledge and General Tamil or General English carrying 150 marks each. The pass mark prescribed for Group IV Special Competitive Examination was 90 out of 300 marks. The petitioner got his hall ticket to attend the examination in a centre at Tiruchirappalli. 3. According to the petitioner, he wrote the examination exceedingly well. But however to his shock, on 16.07.2008, he came to know from the internet that only 70 marks were awarded to him in the written examination. According to him, he made a mistake in filling up the column meant for the serial number of the question paper, by writing 'A' instead of 'D'. The petitioner thought that for this mistake only two marks will be deducted. According to the petitioner, the Association to which he belongs had challenged the original notification in having restricted the number of posts to filled up to 4103 instead of 11500. It is stated that the respondents have regularised the service of those candidates who have secured 204.5 marks and above in the first batch under the MBC category. In the second category, the respondents regularised the candidates who have secured 184.5 marks and those matters were seized by this Court. By a letter dated 06.05.2009 it was agreed to regularise all those candidates who have secured pass marks i.e. 90 marks and above in the examination held on 17.02.2008. It was thereafter, the petitioner had realised that he would have got more than 90 marks. Therefore, on 11.12.2008, he sent a representation reiterating his earlier request to re-evaluate his answer sheet and award proper marks. When he received the impugned order, he has come forward to file the present writ petition. 4. Heard the arguments of Mr.N.Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.A.Arumugam, learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent and Ms.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi, learned counsel for the second respondent- TNPSC. 5. In the instructions given to the candidates for writing the examination, in Instruction Nos.23 and 42, it was stated as follows:- "23.The Booklet Series [viz.,A,B,C or D] will be available on the top left side corner of the 1st page of the question booklet. That Booklet Series https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has to be noted down in the column provided for that purpose on Side-2 of the answer sheet besides shading the relevant box as shown in the example given in the Appendix. Two marks will be deducted if the Box for 'Booklet Series' is not shaded/wrongly shaded. 42. Candidates are advised to write to the Controller of Examinations on items or question, the candidate considers defective in the Question Booklet within three days from the date of Examination. In such representations, Register Number, Name and address of the candidate, Question Number, Question Booklet Series etc., should invariably be quoted. Any representation received after three days from the date of examination or without any of the required particulars will receive no attention." 6. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner never questioned anything immediately after writing the examination as required under law. He wrote the examination on 17.02.2008. His first representation was on 18.07.2008 and second representation was on 11.12.2008. First of all, in the absence of any Rule, the petitioner do not have the right to claim re-evaluation as a matter of right. 7. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27. In paragraph 26, it was held as follows:- "26. ... Viewed against this background, we do not find it possible to agree with the views expressed by the High Court that the denial of the right to demand a revaluation constitutes a denial of fair play and is unreasonable. The Board is a very responsible body. The candidates have taken the examination with full awareness of the provisions contained in the Regulations and in the declaration made in the form of application for admission to the examination they have solemnly stated that they fully agree to abide by the regulations issued by the Board. In the circumstances, when we find that all safeguards against errors and malpractices have been provided for, there cannot be said to be any denial of air play to the examinees by reason of the prohibition against asking for revaluation." 8. Further on more or less on similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1453 of 2008 and W.P.No.8745 of 2009 dated 14.10.2009 in the case of P.Thamilarasi v. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission had rejected the request on the sole ground of delay. In Paragraph 7, it was observed as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "7. In any case, inasmuch as the selection process in respect of the aforesaid notification having already been completed, it will be difficult to upset the selected candidates at this stage. Learned senior counsel, therefore, requests that if that is the view of the Court, the writ petition itself be decided, We, therefore, withdraw the writ petition to this Division Bench and in view of what is stated above, inasmuch as there is a substantially long delay in approaching the Court, we dismiss the writ petition on that ground alone." 9. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. svki To 1.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Omanthurar Government Estate, Chennai – 600 002. 1 cc to Mr.N. Rajan, Sr. 7589 W.P.No.26965 of 2009 SA (CO) kk 23/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/