Dismissed

Nandhini .R v. The Tamil Nadu Public Service commission

Madras HC7 Apr 2022WP/5279/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking the constitution of an Expert Committee to re-examine answer key discrepancies in a PSC examination. The Court held that the interim order allowing the petitioner to appear for the written examination had been fully complied with, leaving nothing to adjudicate.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.

Nandhini .R Vs The Tamil Nadu Public Service commission — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.No.5279 of 2021

¶6

and WMP.Nos.5830, 5832 & 5834 of 2021

¶7

R.Nandhini ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, represented by its Secretary, TNPSC Road, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to constitute an Expert Committee to examine the correctness of the key answers provided by the respondent Commission for question Nos. 137, 9, 67, 109, 39, 16, 64 &11 and also 34 & 187 under the Notification No.01/2020 dated 20.01.2020 and accordingly direct the respondent to select the petitioner for the next stage of the selection process to write main written examination based upon the key answers provided by the Expert Committee if the petitioner obtain higher than the cut off marks.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mrs.Dakshayani Reddy

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Govardhanan Standing Counsel

¶13

This writ petition has been filed to constitute an Expert Committee to examine the correctness of the key answers provided by the respondent Commission for question Nos. 137, 9, 67, 109, 39, 16, 64 &11 and also 34 & 187 under the Notification No.01/2020 dated 20.01.2020 and accordingly direct the respondent to select the petitioner for the next stage of the selection process to write main written examination based upon the key answers provided by the Expert Committee if the

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

petitioner obtain higher than the cut off marks.

¶16

2.When this writ petition came up for hearing on 03.03.2022, by considering the arguments of the parties, this Court passed the interim order as follows:

¶17

“4.Considering the above submissions and in view of the doubt raised by the fresh expert committee in respect of key answer to Question No.58, this Court, without going into the merits and in the interest of parties, directs the respondent/TNPSC to permit the writ petitioners, who have reached the cut off marks in the preliminary examinations, after they have been awarded 1.5 marks for Question No.58, to appear for the main examinations to be held on 04.03.2022.TNPSC is also directed to issue hall tickets to those persons, if possible before 9.00 a.m on 04.03.2022. It is made clear that this interim order will apply to the writ petitioners alone and it is passed without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties and the results of the writ petitioners shall not be published, until further orders from this Court. This Court would also like to appreciate the assistance rendered by the professors, as nominated by TNPSC, for giving fresh expert opinion.”

¶18

3.The status report has been filed by the second and third respondents in the form of the affidavit and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

¶19

“7.This answering respondent submits that among 59 questions which were placed before the fresh expert committee, for 59 questions including those five questions that wee not challenged by the candidates during the challenge window period, experts concurred with the answers finalised by the expert committee constituted for the finalization of answer keys. For only one question, that is for question No.58, the answer arrived by the fresh expert committee as A & C is differed/changed from the answer finalised by the expert committee constituted earlier for finalization of answer keys which is A.

¶20

58.The colour of the skin in ripened apple, tomato and grape fruits is due to accumulation of

¶21

(A) Carotenoid (B) Lycopene

¶22

¶23

(E) Answer now known

¶24

gGj;j Mg;gps;. jf;fhsp kw;Wk; jpuhl;irapd; njhypd; epwj;jpw;Ff;

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

fhuzk;

(B) iyf;nfhgPd;

(E) tpil bjhpatpy;iy

8.On considering the above fact, the Hon'ble Court has directed the Commission by its order dated 03.03.2022 to award 1.5 marks to the petitioner for Question no.58 and to allow the petitioners to write the Main Written Examination, if they are within the zone of consideration in their respective communal category and to give provisional admission to the Main Written Examination.

¶30

9.In this connection, this answering respondent submits that among the 74 petitioners, 7 petitioners were already admitted to Main Written Examination vide the revised list published by the Commission adhering to the Court order passed in W.P.(MD).No.8025 of 2020 filed by Thiru.G.Sakthirao. Hence, the directions of this Hon'ble Court were applied for the remaining 67 petitioners and among them 5 petitioners alone reached within the zone of consideration. The details of the above said 5 petitioners are as follows:

¶31

Sl.N o.	Reg.No	Name (Thiru./Tmt./Sel vi.)	W.P.No.
1.	0100067100	A.Shanmugasarath i	Petitioner in W.P.No.9760 2021	of
2.	0100146064	S.Aaron Vallarasu	14^th Petitio in W.P.No.5856 2021	ner of
3.	1701009123	T.S.Adithyan	3^rdPetitioner W.P.No.5856 2021	in of
4.	2901012016	B.Krishnaveni	11^th Petitio in W.P.No.5840 2021	ner of
5.	3101006288	R.Saranya	11^th Petitio in W.P.No.5826 2021	ner of

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶33

10.Further, this answering respondent submits that the above said 05 petitioners have been allowed to write the Main Written Examination held on 04.03.2022, 05.03.2022 and 06.03.2022. The Hall Ticket download link, Hall Ticket PDF file have been sent to their e- mail ID and the same has been informed to them over phone. Further the Hard copy of Hall Ticket has also been issued to them at the examination venue.

¶34

12.This answering respondent also submits that despite the eleventh hour efforts taken by the Commission in order to comply with the Interim Order dated 03.03.2022 of the Hon'ble Court, one of the petitioner candidate Thiru.S.Aaron Vallarasu (Reg.No.0100146064) has not appeared for the Main Written Examination.”

¶35

4.In view of the above, proposed question papers have been referred to the expert person and based on the report of the expert opinion, the respondent/TNPSC has permitted the candidates to write examinations which was held on 04.03.2022, 05.03.2022 & 06.03.2022. Further, in view of the aforesaid status report filed by the second and third respondents by way of affidavit before this Court, there is nothing survives for further adjudication in the prayer sought for by the writ petitioner in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶36

5.It is made clear that due to urgency, this Court has passed the interim order, the said interim order cannot be cited as precedent in future. This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, accepting the suggestion of this Court, by referring the question to the expert committee nominated by TNPSC.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(CS-V)

¶39

//True Copy//

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

Dua

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶43

¶44

The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

¶45

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.24529 (25/05/2022)

¶46

W.P.No.5279 of 2021

¶47

RSV(CO) SU(19/05/2022)

¶48

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Nandhini .R v. The Tamil Nadu Public Service commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandhini .R v. The Tamil Nadu Public Service commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Latha Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Tmt.Savithri, Vs The Chairman

M.Boopathy Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

B.Dhanalakshmi Vs The Chief Managing Director

R.Yogesh Kumar Vs The Tamil Nadu Public Service commission

C.Pratheeswara Vs The State of Tamilnadu