Dismissed

B.Ajith Kumar v. the Registrar General

Madras HC31 Oct 2023WP/30309/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four writ petitions were filed by Civil Judge aspirants challenging the non-recognition of their exam results due to errors in shading Question Booklet Numbers on OMR sheets. The High Court of Madras examined the specific instructions invalidating improperly shaded sheets and distinguished prior precedents to uphold the rejection of their candidatures.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions failed and were dismissed sans costs; connected writ miscellaneous petitions closed.

B.Ajith Kumar Vs the Registrar General — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 31.10.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶7

W.P. No.30309 of 2023 and W.M.P. No.29897 of 2023 W.P. No.30398 of 2023 and W.M.P. No.30006 of 2023 W.P. No.30504 of 2023 and W.M.P. No.30148 of 2023 W.P. No.31034 of 2023 and W.M.P. No.30682 of 2023

¶8

W.P. No.30309 of 2023:

¶9

B. Ajith Kumar Petitioner v

¶10

1 The Registrar General High Court of Madras Chennai

¶11

2 The Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission TNPSC Road Broadway Chennai Respondents

¶12

W.P. No.30398 of 2023:

¶13

R. Jaikumar Petitioner

¶14

¶15

1 Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission represented by its Secretary &

¶16

Controller of Examination TNPSC Road Park Town Chennai 600 003

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

1/12

¶19

W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023

¶20

¶21

2 The Registrar General Madras High Court Chennai 600 104 Respondents

¶22

W.P. No.30504 of 2023: R. Boopathi Raja Petitioner v

¶23

1 Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission represented by its Secretary Frazer Bridge Road Chennai 600 003

¶24

2 The Registrar (Recruitment) High Court Madras 600 104 Respondents

¶25

W.P. No.31034 of 2023: Pavithra Priyadarshini Petitioner v

¶26

1 The Registrar General Madras High Court Chennai 600 104

¶27

2 The Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission TNPSC Road V.O.C. Nagar Park Town Chennai 600 003 Respondents

¶28

Prayer in W.P. No.30309 of 2023:

¶29

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to publish the result of Civil Judge examination for Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service conducted on 19.08.2023 in respect of Notification No.12 of 2023 dated 01.06.2023 in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis same transparent manner as having been done by the first respondent in the selection of Civil Judge in Puducherry Judicial Service in respect of 2/12

¶30

W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023

¶31

Notification No.34 of 2023 dated 01.03.2023 and conduct the selection process in a transparent manner.

¶32

W.P. No.30398 of 2023:

¶33

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the preliminary exam result of the petitioner vide Register No.2801002205 and extend all the benefits/privilege which the candidates whose registration number is found in the notification published by the first respondent on 11.10.2023 under the heading Civil Judge, in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service and evaluate his main written examination of Civil Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service scheduled to be held on 04.11.2023 and 05.11.2023 as mentioned in the first respondent notification dated 11.10.2023 by considering his representation dated 13.10.2023 by making such provision as may be required and declare his result.

¶34

Prayer in W.P. No.30504 of 2023:

¶35

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to select the petitioner by treating the OMR sheet of Question Booklet No. as 10203 instead of 00203 in the preliminary examination held on 19.08.2023 and to extend all consequential benefits of selection and appointment arising thereto.

¶36

Prayer in W.P. No.31034 of 2023:

¶37

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to release the marks secured by the petitioner in the preliminary examination for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service conducted on 19.08.2023.

¶38

For petitioner in W.P. No.30309 of 2023 Mr. S. Vijayakumar

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

For R1 in Mr. B. Vijay W.P. No.30309 of 2023 Standing Counsel For R2 in Mr. R. Bharanidharan W.P. No.30309 of 2023 Standing Counsel -----

¶41

3/12

¶42

W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023

¶43

For petitioner in W.P. No.30398 of 2023 Mr. S. Saravanakumar

¶44

For R1 in Mr. R. Bharanidharan W.P. No.30398 of 2023 Standing Counsel For R2 in Mr. B. Vijay W.P. No.30398 of 2023 Standing Counsel ----For petitioner in Mr. L. Chandrakumar W.P. No.30504 of 2023 For R1 in Mr. R. Bharanidharan W.P. No.30504 of 2023 Standing Counsel For R2 in Mr. B. Vijay W.P. No.30504 of 2023 Standing Counsel ----For petitioner in Mr. Sharath Chandran W.P. No.31034 of 2023 For R1 in Mr. B. Vijay W.P. No.31034 of 2023 Standing Counsel For R2 in Mr. R. Bharanidharan W.P. No.31034 of 2023 Standing Counsel -----

¶45

COMMON ORDER

¶46

(made by S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.)

¶47

The commonality in all the petitioners is that all of them are Civil Judge

¶48

aspirants who have written the preliminary examination conducted by the

¶49

Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, on 19.08.2023.

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

4/12

¶52

W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023

¶53

2 Ajith Kumar, the petitioner in W.P. No.30309 of 2023 seeks a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to publish the result of Civil Judge examination for Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service, conducted on 19.08.2023, in a transparent manner, as was done by the first respondent, in the selection of Civil Judges for Puducherry Judicial Service, and conduct the selection process in a transparent manner.

¶54

3 Jaikumar, the petitioner in W.P. No.30398 of 2023 seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the result of the Civil Judge examination (preliminary) for Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service, conducted on 19.08.2023 and extend all the benefits/privileges which the candidates who have been selected for the main written examination to be held on 04.11.2023, were given, and evaluate his written examination answer paper (main), as stated by the first respondent in the notification dated 11.10.2023, by considering his representation dated 13.10.2023.

¶55

4 Boopathi Raja, the petitioner in W.P. No.30504 of 2023 seeks a

¶56

writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to select him by treating the OMR sheet of question booklet number as 10203 instead of 00203 in the

¶57

preliminary examination held on 19.08.2023 and to extend all consequential https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis benefits of selection and appointment arising therefrom. 5/12

¶58

W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023

¶59

5 Pavithra Priyadarshini, the petitioner in W.P. No.31034 of 2023

¶60

seeks a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to release the marks

¶61

secured by her in the preliminary examination conducted on 19.08.2023 for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service.

¶62

6 A common counter affidavit dated 27.10.2023 has been filed by

¶63

the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in respect of three candidates,

¶64

viz., Ajith Kumar, Jaikumar and Boopathi Raja.

¶65

7 In the case of Ajithkumar, petitioner in W.P. No.30309 of 2023, even though he has written his Question Booklet Number 13283 correctly in numerals in the OMR answer sheet, he has shaded the Question Booklet Number as 03823 instead of 13823 in the OMR answer sheet. Thus, he has committed a mistake in shading his Question Booklet Number.

¶66

(emphasis supplied)

¶67

8 In the case of Boopathy Raja, petitioner in W.P. No.30504 of

¶68

2023, he has also written his Question Booklet Number 10203 in the OMR

¶69

answer sheet correctly in numerals, but has shaded the same wrongly as 00203

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

in the OMR answer sheet. (emphasis supplied). 6/12

¶72

W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023

¶73

9 In the case of Jaikumar, petitioner in W.P. No.30398 of 2023, he

¶74

has written the Question Booklet Number correctly in numerals in the OMR

¶75

answer sheet, but, has shaded more than one bubble, besides using whitener.

¶76

10 As regards Pavithra Priyadarshini, petitioner in W.P. No.31034 of 2023, as per the note submitted by the TNPSC, her OMR answer sheet has been invalidated owing to multiple shading of Question Booklet Number done by her.

¶77

11 At the outset, it is necessary to advert to Instruction No.6 of “Instructions to Candidates” given in the OMR answer sheet. The said instruction, in both English and Tamil, reads thus:

¶78

“6. In Section-II, the Question Booklet Number should be written and the corresponding bubbles should be shaded. The Question Booklet Number shaded by you in the bubble will be treated as final. If the bubble for Question Booklet Number are incorrectly shaded / improperly shaded / multiple shading / one or more bubble left blank / not in range; then, the answer sheet will be invalidated. gphpt[ IIy; tpdhj; bjhFg;g[ vz;iz rhpahf vGjp mjw;Fhpa tl;l';fis epug;g ntz;Lk;/ eP';fs; ve;j tl;l';fis epug;gpa[s;sPh;fnsh mJnt ,WjpahdjhFk;/ tpdhj;bjhFg;g[ vz; jtwhf epug;gg;gl;oUe;jhy; / xd;Wf;F nkw;gl;l tl;l';fs; epug;gg;gl;oUe;jhy;/xd;W my;yJ mjw;F nkw;gl;l tl;l';fs; fhypahf tplg;gl;oUe;jhy; / Kiwaw;W epug;gg;gl;oUe;jhy; tpilj;jhs; bry;yhjjhf;fg;gLk;/”

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶80

7/12

¶81

W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023

¶82

¶83

12 From the above, it is clear that if the bubbles for Question Booklet Number are incorrectly shaded or improperly shaded or shaded multiple times or one or more bubbles are left blank or the bubbles are not in range, the OMR answer sheet will be invalidated.

¶84

13 According to Mr. Saravana Kumar, learned counsel for Jaikumar, the condition qua multiple shading has not been stated in the hall ticket, but, only in the OMR answer sheet. Even accepting for the sake of argument that the condition qua multiple shading is not stated in the hall ticket, it has got to be presumed that there is incorrect shading, which falls within the ambit of Instruction 6, supra. The learned counsel, in support of his contention that wrong shading cannot result in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner, relied on the judgment rendered by one of us (SVNJ) in T.Vellisubbaian v The Director, Department of School Education and another¹ , wherein, it was held that non-filling or non-shading is not fatal, if the candidate is otherwise eligible. Be it noted, in the said case, perhaps, there were no instructions stipulated as in the present case, which have been extracted in paragraph 11, supra. In other words, probably, in that case, if the bubble for the Question Booklet Number had been left blank, there was no requirement to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶85

1 W.P. (MD) No.2406 of 2015 decided on 14.06.2015 8/12

¶86

W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023

¶87

reject the applicant's candidature. But, in the cases on hand, Instruction 6, extracted supra , stipulates, in no uncertain terms, the instances in which an applicant's OMR answer sheet will be considered as invalidated. Hence, the judgment relied on by Mr. Saravana Kumar is distinguishable on facts and as such, cannot be of any avail to the petitioner.

¶88

14 That apart, the OMR answer sheet is printed and handed over to the candidate concerned. The original OMR answer sheet pertaining to Ajith Kumar, Boopathy Raja and Jaikumar were produced before this Court. From a perusal of the same, it is discernible that it contains columns such as serial number, name and register number of the candidate, subject, centre, venue, date and session along with space for pasting photograph. So, the question of handing over another OMR sheet is not possible even assuming for the sake of argument that the request of the candidate to the invigilator to hand over a new answer sheet is to be accepted.

¶89

15 Mr. B. Vijay, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court drew

¶90

the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of

¶91

India v Mahendra Singh² . A reading of the same would make it clear that

¶92

filling up of the application and also attempting of the answer sheet have to be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶93

2 C.A. No. 4807 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.19886 of 2019) decided on 25.07.2022 9/12

¶94

W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023

¶95

done in the manner so prescribed. It has further been held in the said judgment that even if the mistake in the filling up of the OMR answer sheet has crept into due to inadvertence, the candidature of the applicant should be rejected.

¶96

16 In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the petitioners who have incorrectly shaded the bubbles in the OMR answer sheets, are not entitled to any relief.

¶97

In the result, all the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed, sans costs. Connected W.M.Ps. are closed. The petitioners' OMR answer sheets submitted by the TNPSC in a sealed cover were returned to the official of the TNPSC in the Open Court.

¶98

(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 31.10.2023

¶99

cad

¶100

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶101

10/12

¶102

W.P. Nos.30309, 30398, 30504, and 31034 of 2023

¶103

¶104