The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Chennai News : Court orders preparation of list of unselected candidates for SI post

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Nov 08, 2009
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

Court orders preparation of list of unselected candidates for SI post

K.T. Sangameswaran

Pulls up authorities for wrong evaluation of answer papers

CHENNAI: Pulling up authorities for wrong evaluation of answer papers of candidates who had applied for the post of Police Sub-Inspector, the Madras High Court has directed them to prepare a list of all unselected candidates who had given the correct answers to certain questions and grant marks accordingly.

The court also directed the authorities to take the cut-off marks fixed for the selection in the written examination as the basis for the respective categories for consideration of non-selected candidates who would now get higher marks. Viva voce should be conducted for candidates who come within the cut-off mark.

A scrutiny of the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board procedure would show that it did not verify the key answers and the question papers before and after the examination. This is a serious lapse. “This court is also of the view that the entire scenario has been caused only by the mistakes committed by the respondents,” Justice M.M. Sundresh observed.

The petitioners, A. Eswaramoorthy and others, prayed the court to direct the board to add one mark for them for recruitment of Sub-Inspector (men – department quota) 2006 and further direct the authorities to appoint them as SI under 20 per cent departmental candidates quota. Appointments were made from December 2007.

The petitioners, who were unsuccessful candidates, said marks were wrongly awarded for three questions by selecting wrong key answers. The board had requested the Home Department to look into the anomaly caused by correcting the answer papers with wrong key answers by appointing the affected candidates. This was rejected.

Petitioners’ counsel said the respondents had admitted to the mistake of not awarding marks correctly and awarding marks wrongly to the selected candidates. As a consequence, the marks should be added to the petitioners’ marks.

The government submitted it was true that mistakes had crept into the key answers, resulting in wrong evaluation. With specific vacancies being notified, the vacancies could not be extended to the petitioners.

Mr. Justice Sundresh said there was no dispute on the fact that three questions had been wrongly evaluated. The right to be considered for a post would also include the right to be considered properly. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, he said the petitioners had a right to be considered for the post. Some of the non-selected candidates would have been selected but for the mistakes by the authorities.

Transparency

The judge also said that when the board had no objection to furnishing the copies of the answer sheets, key answers and the marks obtained, nothing prevented it from publishing the same either in newspapers or on its website after the completion of the examination. “Transparency is one of the basic foundations of the democratic system.”

The relief sought for could not be restricted to petitioners alone. Merely because the others had not approached the court, their rights could not be taken away.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu