MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF WRIT APPEAL (Under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (Appellate Jurisdiction) W.A. No. of 2022 Against W.P.No. 8476/2021

MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF WRIT APPEAL
(Under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
W.A. No. of 2022
Against
W.P.No. 8476/2021
(Order dated 07.04.2022 passed by His Lordship Mr. Justice D.Krishna Kumar dismissing the same)
K.Selva Rama Rathnam,
S/o Kuthalingam,
No.3/179, Main Road,
Lakshmipuram, Achankuttam Post,
Tenkasi-627 861 …Appellant/4th Petitioner

Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Personnel and A.R. Department,
Secretariart, Chennai-600009.

2. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Represented by its Secretary,
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 …Respondents/Respondents

MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF WRIT APPEAL

The address for service of the Appellant is that of his counsel M/s M.RAMAMOORTHI, M.DINESH and B. RAM PRABHU Advocates having office at No. 160, III Floor, Hussain Plaza, Thambu Chetty Street, Madras-600 001.
The address for service of the respondent is as stated above.
The appellant/4th petitioner prefer this Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal against the order passed by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.Krishna Kumar in W.P. No. 8476/2021 dated 07.04.2022 dismissing the Writ Petition for the following among other
GROUNDS
(i) It is submitted that the issue raised in the Writ Petition is with regard to the preliminary examination of Group I conducted by TNPSC under the Notification No.01/2020 dated 20.01.2020. The examination was conducted on 03.01.2021. The legal issues raised by the appellant/4th petitioner with regard to the perversity of the Expert Committee Report were not at all considered by the Learned Judge under the impugned order. The same amounts to non-application of mind and hence liable to be set aside.
(ii) The order of the Learned Judge dismissing the above Writ Petition do not discuss the key answers published on 07.01.2021 and their Selection List based on the answer key, which was published on 09.02.2021 by the respondents and hence the same is unsustainable under law.
(iii) The appellant and other petitioners in connection with the said writ petitions batch, had raised issues disputing more than 33 questions for which the options in the tentative keys were incorrect. But, according to the expert committee report, the key to for only one questioni.e. Question Number 58 was wrong and hence recommended awarding of 1.5 marks to all the candidates who had attempted it in the examination. With regard to the remaining 32 questions, they are either ambiguous, or all the answers are wrong. After filing of the writ petition the appellant/4th petitioner had submitted that 60 questions are wrong. The details of the same were submitted before the Learned Judge who passed the impugned order. The Learned Judge did not even consider the submissions of the appellant/4th petitioner in this regard. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
(iv) The appellant submits that the tentative answer keys published by the respondent on 07.01.2021 and the Expert answer keys after filing of the case published in their website are contrary to each other with more ambiguities and they are doubtful in nature thus resulting in injustice to the participants of the examination conducted by TNPSC. This was not at all considered by the Learned Judge under the impugned order and hence the same is liable to be set aside.
(v) It is submitted that pursuant to the Expert Committee report on 02.03.2022, the Learned Judge came to conclusion that only one question was wrong vide question No.58 and that marks have been awarded to the candidates. The submissions of the appellant/4th petitioner in this regard were not at all considered and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
(vi) The respondents have stated that the Expert Committee consists of 11 members from various colleges and experts of various subjects. The respondents did not disclose their names and other details and did not disclose the basis on which the Expert Committee was constituted. The very appointment of the Expert Committee is mysterious as they did not delve into the issues raised by the appellant/4th petitioner at all. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
(vii) The appellant submits that around 60 questions are wrong and had submitted the same by way of authenticated documents including Government records. The expert Committee did not disclose any reason for arriving at the conclusion and did not discuss the details of the submissions made by the appellant/4th petitioner. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
(viii) It is submitted that the Expert Committee ought to have examined all the questions and issues raised by the appellant and the process adopted by the Expert Committee is an erroneous one. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
(ix) The appellant is strongly disputing the 33 questions with the substantial proof being filed before the Learned Judge. The same may be read as part and parcel of this Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal. The issues raised by the appellant with regard to the 33 question was not at all considered and hence impugned order suffers from non-application of mind. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
(x) There are totally 33 questions which are disputed by the appellant/4th petitioner as having wrong answer keys or the questions themselves being ambiguous. Those questions and answers are Question numbers 82, 117, 106, 109, 83, 112, 116, 121, 136, 77, 137, 151, 187, 197, 200, 9, 11, 16, 32, 34, 39, 47, 48, 57, 79, 81, 41, 56 and 147 and hence the appellant had raised objections. With regard to 4 questions viz., 38, 80, 107 and 139 the respondents had admitted that the answer keys are wrong. Still the expert committee had come to a conclusion that one question is wrong. Hence the finding of the Learned Judge is contrary to the admission made by the respondents and is liable to be set aside.
(xi) With regard to question No. 82, the respondents answer key is “D” ie., all the four statements made in the question are correct. The said answer key is wrong because (i) Kanyakumari District came into existence only on 01.11.1956, but Jaihind Chempakaraman Pillai was born on 15.09.1981 at Thiruvananthapuram which is the capital city of Kerala and was never part of the Kanyakumari District at any point of time. Similarly Chenpakaraman Pillai formed “Indian National Volunteers Front” and not “Bharathamatha Valibar Sangam (Youth Association) formed @,e;jpa njrPa bjhz;lh; mzp@ and not ghujkhjh thypgh; r’;fk;@/as stated in the said question. Hence three statements made in 1,2 and 3 are wrong and the fourth statement alone is correct. Hence the answer key “D” is wrong, but the expert committee has certified the answer key “D” is correct. In other words, the expert committee state that he was born from Kanyakumari district of erstwhile Travancore State, had started Bharatha Matha Valibar Sangam and was married to Lakshmi Bai of Indian National Army in 1931. It is pertinent to note that the Indian National Army was not in existence in 1931 and the INA or the Aza Hind Fauj was formed only in 1942 at Singapore during Second World War time by Nethaji Subhash Chandra Bose. The Expert Committee Report in this regard is without any basis and the Learned Judge did not apply his mind on the correctness of the Expert Committee report in the light of the submissions made by the appellant in this regard. In fact, the findings of the Expert Committee are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xii) With regard to question No. 117, it is submitted that there are four statements about Bharathiar. The first statement is incorrect to the limited extent that the 1905 session of Indian National Congress is referred to as Banares Session and not Kasi Session. With regard to the second statement, that in 1906, he started the Balabharata Sabha, it is submitted that the same is wrong. He edited the English Magazine “Bala Bharatham” in 1907 and the same is not an organization as made the second statement in Tamil. Hence only statements 3 and 4 are correct. But the answer key and Expert Committee states that all the four statements are correct. The findings of the Expert Committee are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside
(xiii) With regard to Question No. 106 on the statement regarding Trade, Hotels and Transport Sector is not a single sector as PIB (Press Information Bureau), information relates Trade, Hotels, Transport, Communications and service related to broadcasting as a single sector. Trade, Hotels and Transport as a Sector by itself do not figure in any of the Government Information systems. The fourth statement is ambiguous and confusing one and no one can say whether the statement is correct or incorrect. As per PIB (Press Information Bureau), the trade, hotels, transport, communication and services related to broadcasting contracted 47.0%, during the relevant period and the fourth statement states that the contraction is around 5% in the trade, hotels, and transport sector. But the answer key and Expert Committee states that first two statements are correct, without answering the confusion created in the fourth statement. The findings of the Expert Committee are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xiv) With regard to Question No. 109, two statements are given and both the statements are correct. Hence option C is correct, because as per the book “Banking reforms in India consolidation Restructuring and Performance” the banks with larger market shares may have larger power and use it to its advantage as a smaller number of big banks make collection more likely. Based on the above statement, SBI, being the new merged entity gets into the Global top 50 league and has raised $600 million through overseas bonds and has come forwarded to provide $1B US Dollar to Australia’s Adani Project and also the street vendors. Hence the first statement given in Question 109 is also correct. But the answer key and Expert Committee states that the second statement alone is correct. The findings of the Expert Committee are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xv) With regard the Question No. 83, as to the woman freedom fighter who participated in Madras Salt Satyagraha, the correct answer is Smt. Durgabai Deshmukh as she is a married woman. The key to answer states that the answer “C” is corrects which refers to someone as Selvi Durgabai. Nobody in Madras participated as “Selvi Durgabai” in the Madras Salt Satyagraha. As per the book of Gandhi, Women and the National Movement 1920-1947, “Durgabai Deshmukh” participated in Madras Salt Satyagraha. Further the book women and Educational Development by Mukta Gupta-2000 which clearly mentioned as “Mrs.Durgabai Deshmukh” participated in Madras Salt Satyagraha and the answer “C” refers her as an unmarried woman. Further, the name KB Sundarambal is referred as KP Sundarambal. The objection raised by the appellant/4th petitioner in this regard was not considered by the Expert Committee at all and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xvi) With regard to Question No. 112, it is submitted that candidates are asked to arrange the chronological order of (1) Champaran Satyagraha 19th April, 1917 (2) Kheda Satya Graha22nd March to 5thJune 1918 (3) Ahmadabad struggle Feb-March 1918 and (4) Baisaki day.The framer of this question has not realized the fact that Baisaki is the New Year day in Punjab, which occurs every year and do not fit in the chronological order referred above. Hence the answer would be 1-3-2-4, and not “A” as given in the answer key as well as by the Expert Committee which is 1-2-3-4. As per the book of Gandhian Satyagraha an Analytical and Critical Approach by Ajay Shankar Raj-2000, it is as follows:
Champaran Satyagraha, Ahemedabad Struggle and Kheda Satyagraha i.e, 1,3 and 2. The findings of the Expert Committee are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xvii) With regard to Question No. 116, the question is to which if the following day was named to celebrate the release of Bipin Chandra Pal by Swadeshi leader of Tamil Nadu. (A) Day of Deliverance (B Day of Mourning (c) Swarajya Day (D) Direct Action Day (E) Answer not known. It is submitted that answer A) Day of Deliverance has been translated into Tamil as Independence Day. In the book of freedom fighters of India by Lion M.G.Agarwal-2008, it has been stated that Bharathiyar celebrated “Swedeshi Day” @Rnjrp jpdk;@ but not there is no mention of the release of Bipin Chandra Pal. The framer of the question has not realized that “Swarajaya” is rule by ourselves and that “Swadeshi” is about manufacturing products by ourselves i.e, something like “Make in India” (though conceptually different). In the Book of M. Padmanabhan on Indian Leaders, it has been stated that Swarajya Day was celebrated on 26th June, 1932. In the Tamil translation, Swarajaya has been translated in to Swadeshi. In Tamil also it should have been referred to as Swarajya day only. In this question, English question wrong, but option “C” is right. In Tamil, question is right, the option “C” is wrong. The Expert Committee did not deal with this issue and its findings are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xviii) With regarding Question No. 121, four statements regarding Subhas Chandra Bose have been given. As per page 131, in the book of Netaji Subash Chandra Bose and Indian Freedom Struggle, he boycotted the Simon Commission in 1928 not 1927. Hence the third statement that he boycotted Simon Commission in 1927 is wrong. Only statements 1,2,4 are right and therefore answer “B” given in the key to answer and Expert Committee Report i.e, all the four statements are correct is a wrong answer. The Expert Committee did not deal with this issue and its findings are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xix) with regard to Question No. 137, the question is to name the direct tax revenue not relating to the central government. (A) Taxes on Income (B) Taxes on property and Capital transaction (C) Taxes on commodities and services (D) Taxes on dividends and profits and (E) Answer not know. In the tentative key, the respondents refer D as correct answer. The Expert Committee states that it is C. It is submitted that B is “taxes on property” and it relates to State Government and therefore the option “B” only correct. Taxes on dividends and profits relate to central government and answer Key “D” is incorrect. As per reference, the three answers B, C, D will come under the category of the revenue which is not related to direct tax revenue of the Central Government. Only Income tax under A is the direct tax revenue of the Central Government. The Expert Committee did not deal with this issue and its findings are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xx) It is submitted that Question No. 151, the question is The council of Ministers of the Parliament hold office during the pleasure of (A) Prime Minister (B) President (C) Parliament (D) None of the above and (E) Answer not known. The tentative key of the respondents has stated that answer A is correct. The Expert Committee states that answer B is correct. There is a contradiction here which is not addressed by the Expert Committee. Further, the issue here is that the Union Council of Ministers are part of the Executive under the President. Parliament is the legislating body. The council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister are answerable to the Parliament. There is no Council of Ministers of the Parliament under the Constitution of India. The Expert Committee did not deal with this issue and its findings are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xxi) For the Question No. 187, regarding Agriculture Information Service Network (AGRISNET), all the four statements are correct. The information regarding theMinimum Support Price from the Tamil Nadu Government Website. Apart from it, when we search in salient statistics on Agriculture 2019, we can get the price list of MSP (Minimum Support Price) and all the options are right and therefore answer “B” which states that statements I, II and IV alone are correct is wrong.The Expert Committee did not deal with this issue and its findings are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xxii) With Regard to Question No. 197, answer “B” i.e, Tamil Nadu State is a first state to employ differently able in Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme is incorrect. This answer key is confirmed by the Expert committee as well. The Tamil Nadu Government issued an order dated 25.06.2012 in G.O. Ms.No. 52 regarding special works for differently abled. But under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment, the Gujarat and West Bengal States have already provided employment under this scheme from 2009 onwardstherefore, the answer “B” is not correct.The Expert Committee did not deal with this issue and its findings are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xxiii) The Question No. 200 is, “Post Tsunami sustainable livelihood program for the coastal commodities of Tamil Nadu is assisted by, (A) World bank (B) International Fund for Agriculture Development (C) Asian Development Bank (D) International Monetary Fund and (E) Answer not known. Here assisted by means “supported by” helped by and it is giving secondary role only. Moreover, International Fund for Agriculture Development is involved this scheme. That is important role. For example, one who is doing operation is the main surgeon, but another surgeon assists him. Here, the second one, only assisted the operation. If it is assisted by means the World Bank and Asian Development Bank also supported to coastal communities of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, A, B and C are also right. The answer “B” is not correct which is given as the correct answer in the Key as well by the Expert committee. G.O. (MS) No. 172, Rural Development and Panchayath Raj (CGS III) dated 12.11.2008 clearly reveals all the above mentioned institutions. The Expert Committee did not deal with this issue and its findings are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xxiv) With Regard Question No. 16, the book of language Conflict and National Development clearly reveals that “Hindi” and “Punjabi” are closely related languages. The book of social space of language, described that it is Indo-Persian and Indo Arabian. Punjabi is a member of Indo-Aryan language family. It is closely connected with other Indo-Aryan languages. Therefore, answers “A to D” are correct. The Expert Committee did not deal with this issue and its findings are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xxv) Regarding question No. 32, there are two answers will come i.e. A and B,because the Book of World Scientific Reference on Asia and the World Economy which specifically analyze that the “lack of fresh water flow and climate will be affected fresh water then it will reflect by river salinity. Therefore, the two answers specified here.The reference taken from Green House effect, sea level riseand salinity in the Delaware Estuary and their necessary research and the higher priority is to determine the impact of the various climate change sceneries on river salinity. Both the Key to answer and the Expert Committee has stated that B alone is correct. The Expert Committee did not deal with this issue and its findings are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xxvi) Regarding Question No. 34, in plant metabolism, the important pollutant is not only (C)Sulphur-di-oxide. Equally the first (A) Nitrous Oxide is also responsible and the key as well as Expert Committee refer only (C) the respondents are ought not to be given two answers. The Book Soil Emission of Nitrous Oxide and its mitigation clearly reveal that Nitrous Oxide highly affected the plant metabolism.The second option (B) Carbon-di-Oxide (CO2) increases the level which affect the earth and it also cause pollutant for growth of plant metabolism. Hence, there are A, B and C three answers which are correct and therefore the answer “C” alone is wrong.The Expert Committee did not deal with this issue and its findings are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xxvii) In the Question No. 47, regarding sustainable development it not option “A” which is Natural assets are finite is correct. Option “D” Present model of development promotes stability in nature is the correct one. As per The UNO, International Institute for Sustainable Development and a reference of NCERT books confirm the above. The key states A is correct, Expert Committee states A and D are correct. Option d alone is the correct one. The Expert Committee did not deal with this issue and its findings are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xxviii) For Question No. 57, Kidney stones are formed by Cystine, oxalate and Uric acid and also “sodium”. In this question all options I, II, III, IV are correct. Sodium Oxide is important informing “Renal Calori”. Tamil Nadu School books for uniform education explains that the formation of Renal Calori specifically sodium oxide on this. Therefore, answer B only is not correct. All the four are correct. The Expert Committee did not deal with this issue and its findings are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xxix) In Question No. 79, in the book of Fuzzy and Neutrosophic Analysis of Periyar’s Views and Un-touchability, it has been stated that Periyar do not accept any religion as per Page No. 364 of the said book. As per Uniform Education book regarding Periyar’s view on Civilization, he insisted to eradicate religion and therefore option “A” i.e, accepting every religion do not arise. Answer D i.e, progress based on the scientific inventions of today and making life pleasant. is also not correct. The statement in d has been made by Dr. B.R.Ambedkar and not Periyar. The key to answer states D is correct and the Expert Committee states that A is the correct answer. The Expert Committee did not deal with this issue and its findings are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xxx) The answer to Question No. 81, i.e, the woman leader who participated in the Neil Statue Satyagraha in 1927 is Anjalai Ammal as per previous TNPSC question and answers. Nobody in the name of Padmashini ammal participated in the Neil Statue Satyagraha in 1927. Therefore, the answer “B” given by the Key answer and the Expert Committee is wrong. The Expert Committee did not deal with this issue and its findings are contrary to evidence and hence perverse. The perversity of the Expert Committee was not at all considered by the learned Judge under the impugned order and hence liable to be set aside.
(xxxi) The Question Nos. 38, 80, 107 and 139 are questionable by the respondents themselves recommended for Committee.
It is submitted that there are totally 31 questions which are wrong, controversial andambiguous and in the question booklet and they are totally affected the Group-I preliminary portion points, especially the petitioners and other candidates those who are all not selected for mains.
(xxxii) The respondents ought not to be given option “E” because if the candidates do not know the answer for that question, the candidates can choose option “E”. If the candidates choose option “E” it is also right. The option “E” should have been taken out.
(xxxiii) The respondents ought not to have published a list of candidates eligible for mains without rectifying the defective questions and answers
(xxxiv) In Judiciary examination, when the result published, the answer key also released with selected candidates and disclosed their marks also. In Group IV, the respondents have disclosed the secured marks of the candidates. But the Group-I, they ought to have disclosed the marks to all the candidates at that time of result published with selected candidates for mains.
(xxxv) Due to the wrong identification of key answers, by the question setters, the meritorious candidates like appellants and other aspirants could not select and admit for the main examination.
(xxxvi) The Learned Single Judge of this Honourable Court in W.P. No. 13346 of 2019 and orders delivered on 08.07.2019 and ordered that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is a premier recruiting agency for recruitment of candidates for appointment of State Public Service. Such an agency, which is entrusted with the task of mass recruitment in various services cannot assure its role lightly and allow mistake of the present nature to creep in the selection process often. The credibility of the Commission would be at stake before the public at large if the mistakes are often repeated. Therefore, in public interest, the Commission must ensure that in future selection, such mistakes do not occur and it ensures free and fair selection process.
xxxvii. Apart from 31 questions, (around 60 questions) the appellant has been taking proof regarding some other questions and will file as additional grounds.
(xxxvii) The appellant submits that according to the respondents, they had received 3716 representations from the candidates in respect of exam questions and answers. In pursuant to the representations, the respondents had constituted a committee consists of 3 members as expert committee from 21.01.2021 to 27.01.2021. Within seven days they had analyzed all the objections and came to a conclusion is that few questions and options are found to be wrong and they have been awarded marks, who has shade it respectively.
(xxxviii) This Honourable Court has categorically dealt with, in respect of appointment made by the TNPSC. Unfortunately, despite the observation of the Division Bench of this Court, that the TNPSC has not taken any cue from such caution by the Court. If only the Commission has taken into consideration the observation of the Division Bench in all seriousness, it could have avoided the defects that have crept in, in the setting of questions and the identifications of key answers. It appears that despite the past mistake, the Commission has handled the present important selection of Group-I Services in a cavalier fashion. However, the respondents are doing very similar mistakes then and now and the same is squarely applicable to the present case, therefore the questions are ought to be re-examined accordingly in the manner known to law.

xxxix). In any event, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside as the same is unsustainable in law.

xxxx) The appellant reserve his right to raise the additional ground in near future if so warranted.

Under these circumstances, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 07.04.2022 in W.P. No. 8476 of 2021 and allow this Writ Appeal and thus render justice.

MEMO OF VALUATION
Value of Writ Appeal : Incapable of Valuation
Court Fee paid : Rs. 1,500/-
Value of Writ Petition : Incapable of valuation
Court Fee payable : Rs.750/-

Dated at Chennai on this 7th day of May, 2022

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
C.M.P.No. of 2022
In
W.A.No. of 2022
K.Selva Rama Rathnam,
S/o Kuthalingam,
No.3/179, Main Road,
Lakshmipuram, Achankuttam Post,
Tenkasi-627 861 …Petitioner/Appellant
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Personnel and A.R. Department,
Secretariart, Chennai-600009.

2. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Represented by its Secretary,
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 …Respondents/Respondents

AFFIDAVIT OF SELVA RAMA RATHINAM

I, K.Selva Rama Rathnam son of Kuthalingam Hindu aged about 32 years residing at No.3/179, Main Road, Lakshmipuram, Achankuttam Post, Tenkasi District. Now temporarily come down to Chennai, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:

1. I respectfully state that I am the petitioner herein and the appellant in the above Writ Appeal and as such I am well acquainted of the facts of the cases.

2. I submit that I crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to treat the memorandum of grounds of appeal as part and parcel of this affidavit for fair appreciation of facts and law.
3. I respectfully state that I am the 4th petitioner in the said Writ Petition and we had filed the said writ petition seeking the relief of Writ of Certioarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the key answers published on 07.01.2021 and their selection list based on the Answer Key which was published on 09.02.2021 in the respondent’s official website and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to revise the said answer key and the said list of selected candidates and permit the petitioners to write main examination along with candidates who already found eligible to write main written examination and thus render justice.

4. I respectfully state that I have completed my Degree of Bachelor of Engineering and I am one among the TNPSC Group-I aspirants. Further, I have been prepared for all Government Exams. Being so, the respondents herein called for notification in respect of TNPSC Group-I dated 20.01.2020 and I have applied for the said exam and my Registration No.0100136150 and I am hailing from Backward Class.

5 I further state that as per Notification, the Preliminary Examinations on 05.04.2020 but due to Covid 19 pandemic situation the exam was postponed on 03.01.2021. That the selection process comprised in three phase i.e. Preliminary Examination followed by Main Examination and Finally oral Test. As far as the preliminary examination is concerned, the pattern of examination is that the question paper would contain the multiple choice question carrying 1.5 marks. Thus, totally 300 marks for 200 questions.

6. I further state that finally I had appeared for the preliminary examination on 03.01.2021. Each question has multiple choices of 5 answers, among which one will be the correct answer .The candidates ought to shade the appropriate circle of relevant answer numbers in the OMR (Optical Mark Reader) sheet supplied by the respondent during the exams.
7. I further state that being so, the respondents issued tentative keys on their official website on 07.01.2021 for 196 questions out of 200 questions. The 2nd respondent also invited objections from the candidatures, regarding questions and answers. If the said questions and answers are found to be wrong with the help of Books and the respondents ought to have re-examined those questions and awarding marks to those candidates.

8. In response to the same, the respondents are permitted to raise objections within seven days from the date of publishing of tentative keys. However, some of the days, the server was not worked up. But, around 3716 candidates have raised their respective objections from 20.01.2021 to 27.01.2021. In pursuant to the said objections, the respondents constituted a committee consisting of 3 members to resolve those objections.

9. I further state that I was shocked and surprised that Within seven days they had analyzed all the objections and came to a conclusion that few questions and options were found to be wrong and they have been awarded marks, who has shade it respectively. I further state that there are more than 60 questions and answers found to be ambiguous, either question is no way connected with answer or answer is no way connected with the questions.

10. However, without considering our objections, the respondents are very adamant and according to the respondents all the questions and answers are right. Therefore, I have no other chance to file the writ petition seeking the relief as prayed above.

11. While filing the writ petition, I and other petitioners are disputing around 33 questions that are wrong. When the above matter came up for admission on various dates, the respondents were one or other way to prolong the issues, more fully the candidates raised objections to more than 60 questions, to that effect the proper proof has been submitted to this Hon’ble High Court. Based on the documents, the Hon’ble Court issued a direction, to that effecta fresh committee has been constituted to resolve these issues.

12. I state that in the said circumstances, the committee has been constituted and submitted their report on 02.03.2022, the said committee consists of 11 members in various subjects from various colleges. The said fresh expert committee has found that only one question was wrong i.e. question No.58 and the respondents awarded 1.5 marks to all the candidates. Whereas, I and other petitioners disputed more than 60 questions. By following the said 1.5 marks, some of the candidates were permitted to write Main Examination, to that effect Hall Tickets were issued to 5 candidates.

13. Based on the said committee report, when the above matter came up for final disposal on 07.04.2022 and the same was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge in a batch of cases.

14. It is further pertinent to mention that the Main Examination was conducted on 04.03.2022 and the respondents are going to publish the results at anytime. Hence, there is some immense urgency to file the present appeal during this vacation court.

15. Hence, I am constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court, as the Constitutional rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India have been violated.

16. I further state that the impugned order was uploaded in the official website of this Hon’ble Court only on 29.04.2022, and I had applied for getting certified copy. Further, the certified copy is not yet dispatched by the registry. Therefore, I was not able to get the original order copy. In view of the above said reasons, I could not produce original order copy before this Hon’ble Court. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the production original order copy of the above writ petition.

I therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to DISPENSE WITH THE PRODUCTION OF CERTIFIED COPY order made in W.P.No.8476 of 2021 dated 07.04.2022 and thus render justice.

16. I further state that the fresh expert committee constituted by the respondents, created some suspicions and their report is not correct and their report ought to be re-examined under the Monitor of the retired High Court Judge of this Hon’ble Court. Since, in every exam there are a number of illegalities that happen without any break. Every time, this Hon’ble Court has issued some guidelines to follow up with respect to competitive Exams. But, the TNPSC never ever followed up the same. On the other hand, the question setters, on what basis they have prepared the questions and answers. These are competitive exams, therefore the TNPSC has carefully looked into all aspects.

I therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to appoint an Expert Committee headed by Retired High Court Judge of this Hon’ble Court to re-examine all the questions and answers vide NotificationNo.01/2020 dated 20.01.2020 issued by the 1st respondent till the Disposal of the Writ Appeal and thus render justice.

17. I further pertinent to mention that for the past one decade, I have been preparing for all competitive exams and I am taking all hectic steps to reach my dreams.

I therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to DIRECTION directing the respondents to earmark one vacancy in respect of Group-I Post for which advertisement has been issued vide Notification No.01/2020 dated 20.01.2020 by the 1st respondent till the disposal of the pending Writ Appeal and thus render Justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on this the Before Me,
7th day of May 2022 and the contents
were readout and explained to the deponent
in English, he perfectly understood the same
and signed his name in English in my presence. Advocate::Chennai

MEMORANDUM OF CIVIL MISCELLEANOUS PETITION
(Filed Under Section 151 of CPC)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
C.M.P.No. of 2022
In
W.A.No. of 2022
K.Selva Rama Rathnam,
S/o Kuthalingam,
No.3/179, Main Road,
Lakshmipuram, Achankuttam Post,
Tenkasi-627 861 …Petitioner/Appellant
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Personnel and A.R. Department,
Secretariart, Chennai-600009.

2. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Represented by its Secretary,
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 …Respondents/Respondents

PETITION TO DISPENSE WITH

For the reasons stated accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to DISPENSE WITH THE PRODUCTION OF order copy made in W.P.No.8476 of 2021 dated 07.04.2022 and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this 7th day of May, 2022

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

MEMORANDUM OF CIVIL MISCELLEANOUS PETITION
(Filed Under Section 151 of CPC)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
C.M.P.No. of 2022
In
W.A.No. of 2022
K.Selva Rama Rathinam,
S/o Kuthalingam,
No.3/179, Main Road,
Lakshmipuram, Achankuttan Post,
Tirunelveli-627 861 …Petitioner/Appellant
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Personnel and A.R. Department,
Secretariart, Chennai-600009.

2. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Represented by its Secretary,
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 …Respondents/Respondents

DIRECTION PETITION
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to appoint an Expert Committee headed by Retired High Court Judge of this Hon’ble Court to re-examine all the questions and answers vide Notification No.01/2020 dated 20.01.2020 issued by the 1st respondent till the Disposal of the Writ Appeal and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on this 7th day of May, 2022
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT 
MEMORANDUM OF CIVIL MISCELLEANOUS PETITION
(Filed Under Section 151 of CPC)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
C.M.P.No. of 2022
In
W.A.No. of 2022
K.Selva Rama Rathnam,
S/o Kuthalingam,
No.3/179, Main Road,
Lakshmipuram, Achankuttam Post,
Tenkasi-627 861 …Petitioner/Appellant
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Personnel and A.R. Department,
Secretariart, Chennai-600009.

2. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Represented by its Secretary,
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 …Respondents/Respondents

DIRECTION PETITION

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to DIRECTION directing the respondents to earmark one vacancy in respect of Group-I Post for which advertisement has been issued vide Notification No.01/2020 dated 20.01.220 by the 1st respondent till the disposal of the pending Writ Appeal and thus render Justice.
Dated at Chennai on this 7th day of May, 2022
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Appellate Jurisdiction)

W.A. No. of 2022
K.Selva Rama Rathinam,
S/o Kuthalingam, …Appellant

Vs
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Secreatariat, Chennai and 2 others .. Respondents

INDEX
Sl.
No. Date Description Page No.
01 08.05.2022 Dates and Events
02 08.05.2022 Synopsis
03. 08.05.2022 Coding Sheet
04. 08.05.2022 Court fee
05. 08.05.2022 Memorandum of Writ Appeal
06. 08.05.2022 Dispensewith Petition
07. 08.05.2022 Direction Petition
08. 08.05.2022 Direction Petition
09. 08.05.2022 Common Affidavit
10. 07.04.2022 Copy of the order passed in W.P.No.8476 of 2021 dated 07.04.2022 uploaded only on 29.04.2022
TYPED SET OF PAPERS
11. Degree Certificate of the Appellant
12. 20.01.2020 Notification No.01/2020 issued by the respondent
13. Hall Ticket of the Appellant
14. 07.01.2021 The 2nd respondent published the Answer key of Group-I preliminary Exams
15. 09.02.2021 The Selection List of Group-I which published by the respondents
16. March, 2021 Copy of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.8476 of 2021
17. 15.03.2021 Copy of the batch order passed in W.P.No.5272, 5279, 5826, 5840 and 5856 of 2021
18. 31.03.2021 Common Counter Filed by the Respondents
19. 19.04.2021 Common Additional counter filed by the Appellant
20. 04.01.2022 Copy of the batch order passed in W.P.No.5272, 5279, 8476, 7184, 5826, 5840, 5856 and 9760 of 2021
21. 02.03.2022 Copy of the Expert Committee Report
22. 30.03.2022 Copy of the batch order passed in W.P.No.5272, 5279, 8476, 7184, 5826, 5840, 5856 and 9760 of 2021
23. 07.04.2022 Impugned order in W.P.No.5840 of 2021 (uploaded only on 29.04.2022)
24. 08.05.2022 Memorandum of Writ Appeal
25. 08.05.2022 Vakalth
26. 08.05.2022 Batta
Certified that the above copies are true copies of its originals

Dated at Chennai this the 07th day of May, 2022

Counsel for Appellant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Appellate Jurisdiction)

W.A. No. of 2022
K.Selva Rama Rathnam,
S/o Kuthalingam, …Appellant

Vs
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Represented by its Secretary,
And another .. Respondents

DATES AND EVENTS

20.01.2020 The respondent issued a notification in respect of Group-I examination

05.04.2020 Actual date for the Preliminary Exams and the same is postponed due to Covid-19 pandemic situation on 03.01.2021
03.01.2021 The Preliminary Exam was conducted
07.01.2021 The Tentative Key answers were published
20.01.2021
To
27.01.2021 The candidates were raised their objections over the questions and answers for the Preliminary Exams
Within three days from the date of objections, the respondents were resolved all the questions and answers.
23.03.2021 Writ Petition Filed.
March, 2021 Interim orders were passed by this Hon’ble Court
31.03.2021 Common Counter filed by the respondents with regarding to denial of all questions and answers
19.04.2021 Reply given by the petitioners and others to their counter.
02.03.2022 The Experts Committee has furnished their report
Based on the report, few persons has permitted to write further Main Examination which was conducted on 05.03.2022 and 06.03.2022.
07.04.2022 The Learned Single Judge without considering all the objections raised by the petitioners and others, the writ petition was dismissed. The said order was not yet dispatched. The order copy alone was updated through the official website of the Madras High Court.
08.05.2022 Hence, present Writ Appeal.
Certified that the above documents are true copies of it is originals.

Dated at Chennai this the 07th day of March 2022

Counsel for Appellant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Appellate Jurisdiction)

W.A. No. of 2022
K.Selva Rama Rathnam,
S/o Kuthalingam, …Appellant
Vs
The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Represented by its Secretary,
And another .. Respondents

SYNOPSIS

1. The appellant is one among the aspirant for competitive Exams. The appellant has applied for Group-I exams conducted by the TNPSC.The appellant was duly participated in the Preliminary Exams, which was conducted on 03.01.2021.
2. After finishing the preliminary exams, the respondents herein published the Tentative Keys on their website and permitted all the candidates to raise their objections with regarding to the questions and answers.
3. According to the appellant, there are 60 questions were wrong and he has all proof and the same has been duly submitted this Hon’ble Court. Based on the records, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to direct the respondents to constitute the committee to resolve the dispute. But the committee says that only one question was wrong and other questions and answers are right.
Based on the said submissions made by the respondents, the Learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss all the case. But, whereas the appellant is ready to prove al 60 questions were wrong. The same was not considered. Hence, the present Writ Appeal.
Dated at Chennai on this 07th day of May, 2022

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
CHENNAI DISTRICT

HIGH COURT :: MADRAS
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

W.A.No. of 2022

K.SELVA RAMA RATHNAM
.. Appellant
Vs
The TNPSC,
And another .. Respondent

TYPED SET OF PAPERS

M/s. M.RAMAMOORTHI,
M.DINESH
B.RAM PRABU

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
Cell No.9025902602
Email. pleaderdinesh@gmail.com

You may also like...