IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 31-7-2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR W.P.No.12127, 13762, 14853, 14854, 14855, 14856, 17195, 17247, 17248, 17252, 17452, 17472, 17473, 17474, 17475, 17695, 17696, 17912, 17913, 17914, 18104, 18105, 18106, 18107, 18108, 18109, 18110, 18140, 18296, 18392, 18416 & 18417 of 2008 and Connected Miscellaneous Petitions S. Senthil Kumar ...Petitioner in W.P.12127/08 R. Govindasamy .. Petitioner in W.P.13762/08 S.Anantha kumaar .. Petitioner in W.P.14853/08 M.A. Ravivarma .. Petitioner in W.P.14854/08 P.V.Vijeya Karthik Raj .. Petitioner in W.P.14855/08 G.Ravichandran .. Petitioner in W.P.14856/08 S.Velmurugan .. Petitioner in W.P.17195/08 T.Geetha .. Petitioner in W.P.17247/08 & W.P.17248/08 V.Prasad .. Petitioner in W.P.17252/08 K.Ramya .. Petitioner in W.P.17452/08 R. Arvindh .. Petitioner in W.P.17472/08 D.Ashok Kumar .. Petitioner in W.P.17473/08 S. Senthilnathan .. Petitioner in W.P.17474/08 S. Mugesh .. Petitioner in W.P.17475/08 P.Radhakrishnan .. Petitioner in W.P.17695/08 M. Harikaran .. Petitioner in W.P.17696/08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C. Sivakumar .. Petitioner in W.P.17912/08 D. David Raj Kumar .. Petitioner in W.P.17913/08 M. Deepak Pious Bakkiaraj.. Petitioner in W.P.17914/08 J.Mullai Arasu ..Petitioner in WP 18104/2008 G.Radhakrishnan ..Petitioner in WP 18105/2008 S.Santhakumar ..Petitioner in WP 18106/2008 Ramakrishnan ..Petitioner in WP 18107/2008 A.Felix Raja ..Petitioner in WP 18108/2008 V.Jeyendran ..Petitioner in WP 18109/2008 S.Ethiraj ..Petitioner in WP 18110/2008 Dr.S.Periyannan ..Petitioner in WP 18140/2008 L.Infant Maria Roger ..Petitioner in WP 18296/2008 C.Sangu ..Petitioner in WP 18392/2008 K.Anbuvijayan ..Petitioner in WP 18416/2008 S.Pandiarajan ..Petitioner in WP 18417/2008 Vs. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondent in all WPs PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to treat the petitioner as having passed the Group-1 Services Preliminary Examination 2006-2007 conducted by the respondent on 23.12.2007 by rectifying the wrong key answers assigned to Question Nos.118, 133, 140, 143, 152 & 167 in the said examination. (W.P.12127/08, 17195, 17452/08) 1. Mandamus directing the Respondent to re-evaluate the petitioners answer sheet by rectifying the wrong key answers assigned to some of the questions in the Group-I Preliminary Examination 2006-2007 conducted by the respondent on 23.12.2007 and to hold the petitioner as having passed the said examination, thereon to be allowed to write https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Group-I Main Examination scheduled on 16.08.2008 and 17.08.2008 (WP.no.13762/08, 14855, 17695, 17696 & 18296/08) 2. Mandamus directing the Respondents to re-evaluate the petitioners answer sheet by rectifying the wrong key answers assigned to some of the questions and by assigning marks for the wrong questions and for the questions having two correct answers in the Group-1 Preliminary Examination 2006-2007 conducted by the respondent on 23.12.2007 and to hold the petitioner as having passed the said examination, thereon to be allowed to write the Group-1 Main Examination scheduled on 16.08.2008 (WP.No.14853, 14854, 14856, 17252, 17472 to 17475, 18392, 18416, 18417/2008) 3. Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Memorandum No.3031/QD-E2/2008 dated 20.6.2008 and to quash the same and direct the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner dated 17.5.2008 for the consideration of the answers given by her in the preliminary examinations with the Registration No.11902231 for the appointment in Group-I Services for 2006-2007 written at No.119- Nagercoil Centre, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Honourable Court. (WP.No.17247/08) 4) Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner dated 17.5.2008, for the consideration of the answers given by her in the preliminary Examinations with the Registration No.11902231 for the appointment in Group-I Services for 2006-2007 written at No.119, Nagercoil Centre, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble court.(W.P.No.17248/08) 5) Mandamus directing th respondent to treat the petitioner on having passed the group-1 Services preliminary Examination 2006-2007 conducted by the respondent on 23.12.2007, by rectifying the wrong key answers there on to be allowed to write the Group-1 Main Examination Scheduled on 16.8.2008.(WP.No.17912, 17913, 17914, 6) Mandamus directing the respondent to treat the petitioner as having passed Group-1 Services preliminary Examination 2006-2007, conducted by the respondent on 23.12.2007 by rectifying the discrepant questions answers assigned to questions (1) Nos.23,73,80,98,117,132 in the "B" Series (W.P.Nos 18104,18107,18108 and 18110/08) (2) 62,87,108,123,130,173 in the "A" Series (WP.No.18105/08) (3) 118,133,140,143,152,167,in the "D" series (W.P.No.18106/08 & 18109/08). 4) 58,63,70,127 & 142 in the " C" Series (W.P.No.18140/08) in the said examination and also further directing the respondent to defer the Main examination for 3 months after the scheduled date of 17.8.2008 & 18.8.2008 fixed for the Main examination. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner in W.P.12127/2008 : Mr.N.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen Kumar For Petitioner in W.P.13762/2008 : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for Mr.C.Sivakumar For Petitioners in W.P.14853to14856, : Mr.K.M.Vijayan, 17472 to 17475, 18392/2008 Senior Counsel, for Mr.R.Sivakumar For Petitioner in W.P.17195/2008 : Mr.N. Umapathy For Petitioners in WP.17247&17248/2008 : Mr.S.Subbiah For Petitioner in W.P.17252/2008 : Mr.P.V.Rangarajan For Petitioner in W.P.17452/2008 : Mr.V.Bhiman For Petitioners in WP.17695,17696 & : Mr.M.Vijay Anand 18296/2008 For Petitioners in WP.17912to17914/2008: Mr.N.Velmurugan For Petitioners in WP.18104 to 18110 & : Mr.G.Rajan 18140/2008 For Petitioners in WP.18416,18417/2008 : Mr.S.Saravanakumar For Respondent/TNPSC in all : Mr.A.Arul Government Advocate writ petitions COMMON ORDER By consent of both sides, all the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 2. Since the issue involved in all these cases are one and the same, all the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. 3. The common prayer in all these writ petitions are for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to treat the petitioners as 'passed' in the Group-I Services Preliminary Examinations 2006-2007 conducted by the respondent on 23.12.2007 by rectifying the wrong key answers assigned to question Nos.118, 133, 140, 143, 152, 167 & some other questions and permit them to write the Group-I main written examinations scheduled to be held on 16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The facts in nutshell that are necessary for disposal of all these writ petitions are as follows: (a) The case of the petitioners in all the writ petitions is that the respondent TNPSC issued a notification on 1.8.2007 and invited applications for direct recruitment to the vacancies for the posts included in Group-I Services 2006-2007. The said notification was issued after a gap of seven years. Total number of vacancies notified are 178, distributed among posts in various categories. Petitioners applied for the said posts and also appeared in the preliminary examination (screening test) conducted from 16.12.2007 to 26.12.2007, according to their optional subjects. (b) For Group-I Services, selection procedure consists of three stages viz., Preliminary Examination (Short listing), Main Written Examination and Oral Test. The preliminary examination is a screening test based on objective type questions i.e., to choose the best answers out of the given four options. The respondent has to call for candidates at 1:10 ratio for appearance in the main written examination from various categories. The main written examination is a written test containing General Studies Paper-I and Paper-II. The successful candidates in the main written examination are called for the oral interview for final selection. The selection list will be announced based on the combined marks secured in the main written examination and oral test. Posts are allotted according to the descending order of merit in accordance with the preference given by the candidates in their application. (c) The preliminary examination results were declared on 25.4.2008. In the preliminary examination 200 objective type questions were asked. Each question carries 1.50 marks and the total marks are 300. The cut-off marks fixed for each category and the actual marks obtained by the petitioners in all these writ petitions are as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. W.P.No. Name of the Community Cut-Off Marks No. Candidate/ Marks Obtained Petitioner ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 12127 S.Senthil Kumar SC 195 192 2. 13762 R.Govindasamy ST 156 151.5 3. 14853 S.Anantha Kumaar SC 195 193.5 4. 14854 M.A.Ravi Varma SC 195 192 5. 14855 P.V.Vijaya Karthik Raj SC 195 193.5 6. 14856 G. Ravichandran SC 195 177 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. 17195 S.Velmurugan BC 201 198 8. 17247| T. Geetha BC 187.5 186 17248| (Women) 9. 17252 V.Prasad BC 201 199.5 10. 17452 K. Ramya MBC 180 178.5 (Women) 11. 17472 R. Arvindh BC 201 199.5 12. 17473 D. Ashok Kumar BC 201 193.5 13. 17474 S. Senthil Nathan BC 201 199.5 14. 17475 S. Mugesh SC 195 192 15. 17695 P. Radhakrishnan BC 201 190.5 16. 17696 M. Harikaran MBC 196.5 190.5 17. 17912 C. Sivakumar BC 201 192 18. 17913 D. David Rajkumar BC 201 193.5 19. 17914 M.Deepak Pious BC 201 199.5 Bakkiaraj 20. 18104 J.Mullai Arasu BC 201 192 21. 18105 G. Radhakrishnan BC 201 195 22. 18106 S. Santhakumar ST 156 154.5 23. 18107 Ramakrishnan SC 195 192 24. 18108 A. Felix Raja BC 201 196.5 25. 18109 V. Jayendran MBC 196.5 192 26. 18110 S. Ethiraj SC 195 190.5 27. 18140 Dr.S.Periannan BC 201 193.5 28. 18296 L.Infant Maria Roger- BC 201 193.5 29. 18392 C. Sangu MBC 196.5 175.5 30. 18416 K. Anbuvijayan MBC 196.5 195 31. 18417 S. Pandiarajan SC 195 189 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (d) It is the specific case of the petitioners that the marks awarded to them are lesser than the expected marks, which according to the petitioners is due to the wrong key answers given for some questions as well as wrong questions asked and more than one answer is correct in certain questions. According to the petitioner in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.12127 of 2008, he submitted a representation on 28.4.2006 and pointed out some controversial questions, where the Commission would have given wrong key answers, supported with evidence and even submitted the relevant text books. Immediately after the examination is over, several candidates made representations to the Commission stating similar allegations and discrepancies in the questions as well as answers. However, the Commission failed to rectify the mistakes. According to the petitioners, the Commission should have rectified the discrepancies in the questions/answers by referring the same to the experts in the field/subject or area concerned and proceeded with the valuation and awarded marks as per the correct key answers and award marks to the petitioners, who attended the questions, which are wrongly asked or more than one answer is correct. Following are the sample questions in which there were discrepancies pointed out by the petitioner in W.P.No.12127 of 2008: "(a) In Question No.118 Consider the following statements: Assertion (A): Buddhism does not accept the theory of Karma. Reason (R): It does not accept the existence of permanent self. Now select your answer according to the coding scheme given below: A) Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A) B) Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A) C) (A) is true, but (R) is false D) (A) is false, but (R) is ture. For this question option 'D' - "(A) is false, but (R) is true" is the correct answer. This can be proved from any history text book. However, the Commission has treated 'B' as the correct answer. (b) In Question No.133 Ashrams at four stages of life came to be well established during which period ? A) Pre-Vedic period B) Rig Vedic period C) Later-Vedic period D) None of these For this question option 'D' - "None of these" is the correct answer, since post vedic period is the correct answer. This can be proved from any history text book. However, the Commission has treated 'C' as the correct answer. (c) In Question No.140 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Pallava rulers believed in A) Jainism B) Buddhism C) Hinduism D) Shaivism For this question, option 'D' - "Shaivism" is the correct answer, which could be proved beyond doubt from any history text book. However, the Commission has put 'A' as the correct answer. (d) In Question No.143 Consider the following statements: Assertion (A): Curzon partioned Bengal in 1905 Reason (R) : He wanted to destroy nationalistic unity. Now select your answer according to the coding scheme given below: A) Both (A) and (R) are correct and (R) is the correct explanation of (A) B) (A) is correct, but (R) is wrong C) Both (A) and (R) are correct, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A) D) Both (A) and (R) are wrong. For this question option 'A' - "Both (A) and (R) are correct and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)" which could be ascertained by careful study and also have been mentioned by great historians like Grover & Grover. However, the Commission has put 'C' as the correct answer. (e) In Question No.152 The important parts during the Sangam Age were i) Kaveripattinam ii) Madurai iii) Arikamedi iv) Kapatapuram v) Musiri of these, A) (i), (ii) and (iv) B) (i), (ii) and (iii) C) (i), (iii) and (v) D) (ii) only For this question, option 'C' was the correct answer if it is considered as Ports as per the tamil version of the question. (f) In Question No.167 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The length of India's coast line is about A) 7516.6 km B) 7500.5 km C) 7000 km D) 6100 km For this question, option 'A' - India's Coast Line "7516.6 km is the correct answer, since it includes Andaman & Nicobar Islands. However, the Commission has put 'D' as the correct answer." (e) Similar was the averments made by the other petitioners. Some of the petitioners pointed out ambiguity in more number of questions. According to the petitioners, since the selection is being made after seven years and the petitioners may not be in a position to apply in the next selection due to over age, they are left with no other remedy except to file these writ petitions for rectifying the wrong key answers and for awarding marks either on the ground that the questions framed are wrong, or key answers furnished are wrong, or if more than one answer is correct, the petitioners who attended those questions should be given 1.50 marks each and by awarding marks in such manner they will get the cut-off marks or more for their appearance in the main written examination. 5. The respondent/TNPSC filed counter affidavit by stating that the preliminary examination is meant to serve as a screening test only. The marks obtained in the preliminary examination by the candidates, who are declared qualified for admission to the main written examination will not be counted for determining their final order of merit. The number of candidates to be admitted to the main written examination will be in the ratio of 1:10 having regard to the rule of reservation of appointments. However, if same marks are secured by more than one candidate within the respective reservation group, all of them will be admitted. Final selection will be made on the basis of the total marks obtained by the candidates in the main written examination and oral test taken together, subject to the rule of reservation of appointment taking into account the options of posts exercised by the candidates in the order of preference. A candidate, who has not appeared in any one of the papers in main written examination or oral test will not be considered for selection. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that since the petitioners herein have not secured the cut-off marks prescribed for each category, they are not entitled to appear in the main written examination. Insofar as settling of discrepancies in the questions and key answers, the procedure followed by the Commission is as follows: "6 (i) According to para 42 of the "Instructions etc. to the Candidates" appearing for the objective type examinations", the information received from the candidates or otherwise considering as defective in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ question/answer within 3 days from the date of examinations are taken into account and the same are referred to 2 independent subject experts normally. If there is any difference of opinion between the two examiners, it is referred to the third examiner. (ii) The said well established procedure is followed for this recruitment also. In this connection it is submitted that the Commission has received representations pointing out certain discrepancies on some key answers in the preliminary examination. The said discrepancies have been referred to three individual experts and their opinions have been obtained individually. (iii) Based on the opinion of the three experts, the correct key answers have been arrived at and accordingly the tabulation of results has been done and the Register Numbers of the candidates qualified for Main Written examination arrived at have already been published in the newspapers. Thus, all the discrepancies pointed out by the candidates had already been settled. ....." It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as per paragraph 42 of the instructions, the candidates must submit a representation to rectify the discrepancies within three days from the date of examination and if no discrepancy is pointed out within three days, the same will not draw the attention of the Commission as per the instructions. According to the respondent, out of the six questions referred by the petitioner in W.P.No.12127 of 2008, five questions that is question Nos.118, 133, 140, 152 and 167 have already been settled based on the opinion of the three individual examiners since representations were received from candidates within the time as stipulated in paragraph 42 of the instructions. In the remaining one question i.e., question No.143, none of the candidate pointed out any defect. Pointing out these aspects, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 6. The learned Senior Counsels and other counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that question Nos.62, 88 and 130 are wrong according to the English and Tamil versions. Insofar as question Nos.137, 173 and 174, the key answers are wrong and therefore the petitioners who have attended the said questions are entitled to get 1.50 marks each. The learned Senior Counsels also submitted that admittedly some of the candidates appeared for the examination submitted their objections within three days with regard to the wrong questions and till date it could not be ascertained as to whether the key answers are right or wrong, in view of the non-disclosure of the key answers by the respondent. The respective counsels contended that unless and until the key answers are disclosed, petitioners will not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be in a position to point out the mistake in the key answers and therefore the submission that within three days no objection was raised and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to seek these prayers, is unsustainable. In support of the said submissions the learned counsels cited certain decisions. 7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the TNPSC pointing out the contentions raised in the counter affidavit contended that wherever the candidates submitted objection within three days, the Commission referred the matter to the experts and awarded marks at the time of valuation and after expiry of three days no application for review or verification as to whether the question is correct or the key answer is correct can be entertained. Petitioners having not applied in time before the respondent pointing out the fact of wrong questions or wrong key answers within three days, they have no right to file these writ petitions and seek permission to write the final written examination for selection. In support of the said submission, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent cited certain decisions. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Senior Counsels and other Counsels appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the TNPSC, respondent herein. 9. The question arises for consideration in all these cases are as to whether the petitioners have got any right to point out any defect in the questions asked, more than one answer is correct in the choices given and whether the key answers are wrong, after three days of their examination. 10. Before deciding the said main issue certain factual aspects are necessarily to be considered for proper appreciation of the issues involved in these cases. 11. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/TNPSC produced the opinion of the three experts with regard to the discrepancies pointed out by the petitioners regarding questions/key answers, which reads as follows: "Opinion of the three Experts with regard to the discrepancies pointed out by the petitioner regarding Questions/Answer Keys https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Q.No 'A' Serie s Opinion of the First Expert Opinion of the Second Expert Opinion of the Third Expert Remarks 62 Correct answer is 'C' Correct answer is 'C' Correct answer is 'C' Answer 'C' valued 88 Correct answer is 'C' Correct answer is 'C' Correct answer is 'C' Answer 'C' valued 130 Correct answer is 'A' Correct answer is 'A' Correct answer is 'A' Answer 'A' valued Q.Nos.137, 173 & 174 (Remarks) - None of the candidates who appeared for the examination had pointed out as defective. Hence the said questions were not considered to be defective and therefore the Question of taking into Account for settling discrepancies did not arise. The belated claim of the candidate could not be entertained at the stage as the results of the Preliminary Examination had already been announced." In Question No.167, the expert opinion varies with regard to the text book viz., Manorama Year Book. Since the correct answer varies from the distance stated in the said book even according to the experts appointed by the respondent, marks are awarded to all the candidates, who have appeared for examination as there are three different answers. It is relevant to note that the respondent is not justified in awarding 1.50 marks to all the candidates who have appeared for the examination, but the proper course that should have been adopted is to award 1.50 marks to those candidates who have attended question No.167. 12. The contention of the petitioner that English version of question No.62 is wrong is also well founded. The correct question should be, "The important ports during Sangam age were .....", but, in the question paper it is wrongly mentioned as "The important parts during Sangam age were ....". In view of the said discrepancy pointed out, the persons who have attended question No.62 should be given 1.50 marks. 13. For question No.130, according to the petitioners, option 'D' - Saivism is the correct answer as per the history text book. However, the respondent has chosen option 'A' as the correct answer. Similarly, for question No.137, according to the petitioners, option 'A' is the correct answer viz., the final work of UPSC in recruitment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ process is selection and the respondent has assigned wrong key answer. For question No.173, according to the petitioners, option 'A' is the correct answer according to the great historians like Grover & Grover, however, the Commission gave 'C' as the correct answer. Similar is the contentions raised for several other questions. 14. In the light of the above assertions, which are based on leading text books/authors, there is justification in the contentions of the petitioners that the above matters viz., whether the questions are correct or the key answers are correct in respect of those questions and answers is to be ascertained by a Committee of Experts. Merely because the petitioners have not requested to verify the same within three days, the action of the respondent which is conducting examinations for recruitment to Group-I Services cannot be justified. The petitioners are right in contending that the key answers are not published till date and therefore they could not know even today whether the key answers given for valuation are right or wrong. In such circumstances, the only defence of the respondent that the petitioners have not applied within three days as per the instructions to candidates and therefore they lost their right to get re-scrutiny, cannot be countenanced. 15. The scope of interference, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, when there is violation of statutory duties and injustice caused to any person was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following cases: (a) In Dwarka Nath v. I.T.Officer, AIR 1966 SC 81 = (1965)