The Madras High Court on Monday criticised Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) for not having learnt its lessons for years together and continuing to repeat the mistake of framing wrong questions and key answers even for as important an examination as the one conducted for Group I services.
Justice V. Parthiban expressed his displeasure over the commission having made mistakes with respect to 24 questions in the preliminary written examination conducted on March 3 and wondered how such mistakes get repeated despite a warning issued by a Division Bench of the High Court in 2009. Then, the Bench had stressed upon the need for the TNPSC to be vigilant about the correctness of the answers. It said that paper setters and examiners ought to have greater concern for candidates whose future depends upon their selection. It also asked the commission to be much more thoughtful while setting papers.
“Despite the above observations of the Division Bench several years before, it appears that the commission has not taken cue from such caution by the court. If only the commission had taken into consideration the observations of the Division Bench in all seriousness, it could have avoided the defects that have crept in now.
“It appears that despite its past mistake, the commission has handled the present important selection of Group-I Services in a cavalier fashion. The credibility of the Commission would be at stake before the public at large if the mistakes are often repeated. A philosopher said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
“The commission, which probably did not remember its past mistakes, has repeated the same in the present selection. It is needless to mention that by framing defective question and keys, it is possible that meritorious candidates lose their opportunity to be selected ultimately for public service,” Justice Parthiban observed.
He, however, dismissed a writ petition filed by one the candidates for revising the answer keys after the TNPSC reported to the court that it had already identified the defects with respect to 24 questions and given necessary marks to the eligible candidates. Even after award of those additional marks, the petitioner did not qualify for main examination, the court was told.
