Madras High Court
N.Velumani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 April, 2023
W.A.Nos.1390, 1392, 1393 and 1409 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.04.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.Nos.1390, 1392, 1393 and 1409 of 2022
and
C.M.P.Nos.8956, 8958, 8955, 8963, 8961, 8962,
9038 and 9039 of 2022
1.N.Velumani
2.P.A.Harish Prabhu ... Appellants in
W.A.No.1390 of 2022
B.Amutha ... Appellant in
W.A.No.1392 of 2022
A.Gurupandiyan ... Appellant in
W.A.No.1393 of 2022
K.Selva Rama Rathnam ... Appellant in
W.A.No.1409 of 2022
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Personnel and A.R. Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Rep. by its Secretary,
TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Street,
Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.
Page 1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1390, 1392, 1393 and 1409 of 2022
3.The Controller of Examination,
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
TNPSC Road, V.O.C. Street,
Park Town, Chennai - 600 003. ... Respondents in all
Writ Appeals
4.R.Arun Karthick
5.R.Kavitha
6.R.Dhakshyani
7.S.Winston Churchill
8.E.Anitha
9.J.Yogalakshmi
10.S.Sekar
11.D.Kalaiselvan
12.A.Sharmila
13.B.Krishnaveni
14.A.Siranjeevi
15.S.Dhanalakshmi
16.S.Gangaraj
17.K.Vimalraj
18.S.Muthukrishnan
19.C.Mahendiran
20.R.Manoj
21.K.Suryakala ... Respondents 4 to 21 in
W.A.No.1390 of 2022
4.A.Jeeva
5.M.Hemanath Pritam
6.Kalaiselvan
7.S.Logeshwaran
8.S.Sivakumar
9.M.Sannasi
10.A.Atchaya Biria
11.M.Chinna Iyappan
12.R.Indrani
13.R.Saranya
14.S.Jabaraji
15.P.Sethupathi
16.S.Sahanthapriya
17.R.Rajesh
18.C.Shanthi ... Respondents in 4 to 18 in
W.A.No.1392 of 2022
Page 2/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1390, 1392, 1393 and 1409 of 2022
4.C.Pratheeswara
5.C.Tamilselvan
6.T.S.Adhithyan
7.K.Keerthy
8.V.Vigneswar Singh
9.M.Pradeep Rajan
10.R.Nithya
11.X.Sahaya Jerwin Singh
12.S.Abimanyu
13.P.Sathyanarayanan
14.T.Priyadharshini
15.K.Arun
16.S.Aaron Vallarasu
17.S.Vigneshwaran
18.N.R.Senthilkumar
19.S.Asharani
20.N.Theivakani
21.N.Muthumanicka
22.M.Kasiraja ... Respondents 4 to 22 in
W.A.No.1393 of 2022
4.P.Swetha
5.G.Gowri Shankar
6.Gobi
7.A.Aswathi ... Respondent 4 to 7 in
W.A.No.1409 of 2022
Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order
dated 07.04.2022 in W.P.Nos.5840, 5826, 5856 and 8476 of 2021.
For Appellants in
all Writ Appeals : Mr.Ramamoorthy
for Mr.M.Dinesh
For Respondents in
all Writ Appeals : Mr.Stalin Abimanyu, AGP for R1
Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Abrar Md.Abdullah for R2 and R3
***
Page 3/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1390, 1392, 1393 and 1409 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
These writ appeals have been filed by the appellants against the respective
orders dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Judge in WP.Nos.5840, 5826,
5856 and 8476 of 2021.
2. The writ petitions have been filed by these appellants to call for the
records of the respondents relating to key answers published by the third
respondent in the second respondent website on 07.01.2021 and quash the same
and consequently direct the respondents to revise the answer key and the said list
of selected candidates and permit them to write the main examination along with
candidates, who have already been found eligible to write the main written
examination.
3. Before the Writ Court, considering the arguments advanced on both
sides, initially, interim order was passed on 03.03.2022, directing 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 examination, which was to be held on
04.03.2022. Further, the TNPSC was also directed to issue hall tickets to those
persons, if possible before 09.00 a.m., on 04.03.2022. However, it was made
Page 4/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1390, 1392, 1393 and 1409 of 2022
clear that the said interim order would not apply to the writ petitioners alone, and
it has been passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties
and the results in respect of the writ petitioners shall not be published, until
further orders.
4. Thereafter, upon considering the status report filed by the second
and third respondents as to the action taken, the learned Judge by separate
orders dated 07.04.2022, dismissed the writ petitions as nothing survived for
further adjudication, in view of the fact that proposed question papers have been
referred to the expert person and based on the report of the expert opinion, the
TNPSC has permitted the candidates to write examinations, which were held on
04.03.2022, 05.03.2022 and 06.03.2022. However, it was made clear in the said
orders that due to urgency, interim order was passed and hence, the same cannot
be cited as precedent in future. Challenging the orders so passed in the writ
petitions, the present writ appeals have been filed by the appellants / writ
petitions.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that
the learned Judge did not consider the perversity in the Expert Committee Report.
Adding further, the learned counsel submitted that the appellants have filed
Additional Typed Set of Papers Set -I and Set-II, one with respect to Objections
Page 5/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1390, 1392, 1393 and 1409 of 2022
relating to 24 questions and another with respect to Objections relating to 59
questions, both in respect of Group-I Examination vide Notification No.1 of 2020.
They have also raised other grounds stating that even though disputes have been
raised for 33 questions, only one question was stated to be wrong by TNPSC thus
leaving the other questions. It is also stated that the tentative answer keys
published on 07.01.2021 and the expert answer keys after filing of the cases,
published in their website, are contrary to each other; and that, the names and
other details of the persons constituting Expert Committee, have not been
disclosed. However, the learned Judge has not considered such perversity and
ambiguity in the Expert Committee report. The learned counsel for the appellants
also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.(MD)Nos.1217
and 1218 of 2020 dated 23.12.2020 and submitted that if it is found that the
experts’ opinion is not correct based on the materials placed, the Court can very
well interfere with the same by issuing proper directions to the authorities for
redoing the entire process. Therefore, the learned counsel sought to quash the
impugned orders.
6. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
/ TNPSC, has submitted that proposed question papers have been referred to the
expert person and based on the report of the expert opinion, the TNPSC has
permitted the candidates to write examinations which were held on 04.03.2022,
Page 6/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1390, 1392, 1393 and 1409 of 2022
05.03.2022 and 06.03.2022 and now, the matter has reached its finality. Further,
the learned senior counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of U.P.Public Service Commission vs. Rahul Singh, reported in
(2018) 7 SCC 254, and submitted that constitutional Courts must exercise great
restraint in interfering with key answers provided by Expert Committee and should
be reluctant to entertain plea challenging the correctness of key answers and
that, the Judges cannot usurp the role of experts in academic matters. It is also
submitted that when there are conflicting views, the Court must bow down to
opinion of experts and should not overstep its jurisdiction. Referring to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rishal vs. Rajasthan Public
Service Commission, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 81, the learned senior counsel
submitted that scope of judicial review is limited in respect of correctness of final
key answers uploaded by Commission. He further submitted that though
re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, but practice of re-evaluation and
secreting of questions by Courts which lack expertise in academic matters, must
be discouraged. For this aspect, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Vikesh Kumar Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2021) 2 SCC
309, has been relied upon. Stating so, the learned senior counsel submitted that
the orders of the learned Judge do not call for any interference at the hands of
this court.
Page 7/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1390, 1392, 1393 and 1409 of 2022
7. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
materials available on record carefully and meticulously.
8. It is seen that after passing of the interim order in the writ petitions,
status report has been presented to this Court by the second and third
respondents, in detail. On considering the status report, the learned Judge has
observed that proposed question papers have been referred to the expert person
and based on the report of the expert opinion, the TNPSC has permitted the
candidates to write examinations which were held on 04.03.2022, 05.03.2022 and
06.03.2022 and therefore, nothing survived for further adjudication. Accordingly,
the learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions.
9. This Court perused the status report, which would disclose that the
TNPSC has taken last minute efforts and has complied with the interim order
passed by this Court in a meticulous way. The main contention of the appellants
herein is that the perversity in the Expert Committee report was not at all
considered by the learned Judge and hence, the impugned orders have to be set
aside. Such a contention cannot be countenanced by this court as the scope of
judicial review is limited in respect of correctness of final key answers uploaded
by Commission. Further, in Richal vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission
(cited supra), relied upon by the learned senior Counsel, even though the Apex
Page 8/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1390, 1392, 1393 and 1409 of 2022
Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an
expert committee, did not enter into the correctness of the questions and answers
by itself.
10. It is also to be noted that very recently, this court passed a
judgment in W.A.No.1783 of 2021 on 31.03.2023, wherein the issue relating to
scope of interference of the Writ Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India with the report of an Expert Committee Body in
relation to question / answer keys in a Competitive Examination, has been dealt
with in detail and finally relying upon the principle laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in U.P.Public Service Commission vs. Rahul Singh, cited
supra, the writ appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed
therein.
11. In view of the foregoings, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the orders impugned in these appeals. Accordingly, all these writ appeals are
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
12.04.2023
rk
Speaking Order / Non-speaking order
Internet : Yes.
Page 9/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1390, 1392, 1393 and 1409 of 2022
Index : Yes/No
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Personnel and A.R.Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Secretary,
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
TNPSC Road, V.O.C.Street,
Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.
3.The Controller of Examination,
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
TNPSC Road, V.O.C.Street,
Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.
Page 10/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1390, 1392, 1393 and 1409 of 2022
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
rk
W.A.Nos.1390, 1392, 1393 and 1409 of 2022
12.04.2023
Page 11/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
