Chennai: Finding that an aspiring Group-I services candidate, has scored far less marks than the cut off marks prescribed for admitting him for the main examination in his category general tern, the Madras high court has dismissed his petition, which sought to direct the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, to revise the answer keys and the list of selected candidates for admission to the main written examination with respect of posts included in Combined Civil Services-I Examination (Group-I Services) 2016-2019.
Dismissing the petition filed by S.Vignesh, Justice V.Parthiban said, "This court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out a case for intervention of this court and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed".
Contending that there were totally 17 wrong answer keys and one wrong question, the petitioner said 18 out of 200 questions were to be revalued by the TNPSC with reference to the text and other reference materials.
The judge said although this court finds that the petitioner was a meritorious candidate in view of his academic qualifications and his placement as a business manager in a multi national company, yet, ultimately this court has to see whether his performance in the preliminary examination vis-à-vis, the other candidates was sufficient enough to propel him to be admitted for the main examination. This court was informed about the marks obtained by the petitioner by producing the mark sheet and this court finds that the petitioner has scored far less marks than the cut off marks prescribed for admitting him for the main examination. From the materials it was seen that the petitioner himself was a beneficiary of the subsequent evaluation done by the commission, after the recommendation of the expert committee, the judge added.
The judge said in this case, ultimately, it was found that the petitioner himself has not secured enough marks in his category to reach the zone of admission for the main examination. Therefore, at his instance, this court cannot make any further probe into various other allegations raised on his behalf. In any event, admittedly, the commission itself has identified the defects in the key answers and question and embarked upon to salvage the situation by constituting an expert committee. The committee, after analysis, has recommended for evaluation of those defective question and answer keys and thereafter the marks were added, in pursuance of such recommendation. Therefore, the mistakes which were pointed out by the candidates were accepted and steps were taken immediately to rectify the same and in that process, this court finds that no injustice has been done to any of the candidates. Hence, this court was of the view that in the over all consideration of the merits of the case on hand, this court need not be concerned with a minor infraction in the details submitted by the commission, since it would not in any way tilt the balance of the case in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, this court was of the view that the petitioner cannot have a legitimate cause for complaining in regard to the present selection, the judge added.
