Dismissed

Geetha. S v. The Secretary

Madras HC23 Jul 2024WP(MD)/3179/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction for the respondent to produce the petitioner's OMR sheet and appoint her based on her marks. The Court verified the petitioner's marks against the question paper key and found she did not meet the cut-off for the BC category, leading to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as the petitioner did not meet the cut-off marks of 250.50 for the BC category.

Geetha. S Vs The Secretary — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.3179 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.3179 of 2024 & W.M.P.(MD)No.3138 of 2024

¶7

S.Geetha ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, T.N.P.S.C. Road, Broadway, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003 ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to produce the petitioner's original mark with rank and appoint the petitioner based on the marks secured communal reservation / category in the written examination for the post of Combined Civil Services Examination - IV (Group - IV) services for the year 2022 through a Notification No. 07/2022 dated 30.03.2022 by considering the petitioner representation dated 07.01.2024 within a stipulated time.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sakthi Rao

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.V.Panneer Selvam Standing Counsel

¶13

1/5

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.3179 of 2024

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Heard Mr.G.Sakthi Rao, learned counsel appearing for the

¶18

petitioner and Mr.V.Panneer Selvam, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶19

2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to direct the respondent to produce her OMR sheet and appoint her based on the marks secured, communal reservation / category, in the written examination for the post of Combined Civil Services Examination - IV (Group - IV) services for the year 2022 by considering her representation dated 07.01.2024 within a stipulated time.

¶20

3. In view of the issue involved in the writ petition, on

¶21

02.07.2024, the following order has been passed.

¶22

"As per the orders of this Court dated 04.03.2024, the OMR sheet pertaining to the petitioner was produced in a sealed cover and the cover has been opened in the open Court.

¶23

2.In order to appreciate the matter further, the respondent has to clarify what is the type of question paper issued to this petitioner/candidate. Though the key answers are same, the question papers are given to the candidates in different

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.3179 of 2024

¶27

patterns by shuffling the serial number of the questions. Since the answer sheet does not have anything to identify the type of question, the respondent is required to produce the device used to read the QR code to find out whether the QR code given in the OMR sheet pertains to the petitioner. List this matter after a week."

¶28

4. In compliance of the above order, when the matter is taken up for hearing today, the respondent has produced the OMR answer sheet of

¶29

the petitioner before this Court in a sealed cover along with answer key.

¶30

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced the question

¶31

paper given to the petitioner during examination, which is seem to be of delta type ( δ ).

¶32

6. In order to ascertain whether the answer key pertains to the

¶33

delta type ( δ ) question, the symbol found in the answer key is also verified. When manual correction was done by this Court itself by comparing the OMR answer sheet with the key answer given, it is seen that the petitioner had secured only 187.5 marks representing 125 rights

¶34

3/5

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.3179 of 2024

¶37

answers. The cut off mark fixed for Group - IV services BC category, for which, the petitioner had applied is 250.50. Since the petitioner did not reach the zone of consideration, there is no question of considering the request of the petitioner.

¶38

7. In view of the above stated reasons, the writ petition is

¶39

dismissed . No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶40

23.07.2024

¶41

NCC: Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order

¶42

mbi

¶43

Note: Registry is directed to return the original OMR sheet to the concerned authorities after obtaining due acknowledgment.

¶44

4/5

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.3179 of 2024

¶47

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶48

mbi

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.3179 of 2024

¶50

23.07.2024

¶51

5/5

¶52

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

Geetha. S v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetha. S v. The Secretary

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

M.Jeyaleela Vs The Director of Elementary Education

Kalaivani Vs The Internal Audit Officer

Sakthivel B Vs The Director of Municipal Administration

Karthikeyan.R Vs The Commissioner

I.Sharmila Banu Vs Teacher Recruitment Board

The Correspondent Vs The State of Tamil Nadu