S GANDHI Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as Junior Engineer Grade II, Construction, in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at Batalgundu. For a Junior Engineer Grade II to be promoted, one must pass the Account Test held by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the second respondent herein. A person appointed as Junior Engineer Grade II, is given one increment after completion of one year of the appointment and further increments would be given on a regular basis only, on his passing the Account Test. Therefore, the passing of the Account Test is a condition for further prospects either to Junior Engineer Grade II or Junior Engineer Grade I to get increments as well as promotion.

(2.) IN so far as the petitioner is concerned, he appeared for the Account Test Part -I conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. His registration number is 24669. The examination was held on 3rd November, 1980. The petitioner wrote the said test held at O.C.B.M. High School, Madurai. It is the case of the petitioner that after finishing the first answer book in Account Test Paper I, he asked the invigilator, who was in the hall, for additional answer book. When the petitioner asked for an additional answer sheet, the invigilator told the petitioner that additional sheet are not readily available and therefore the invigilator handed over to him white sheets of paper, which were in his possession, and asked the petitioner to continue to write his answers. When the petitioner finished writing in the white papers, the petitioner asked further sheets of papers. But he was supplied with additional sheets by the invigilator which were not white in colour. It is the case of the petitioner that he asked the invigilator of the hall whether there would be any difficulty, since he had been supplied with white paper and asked the petitioner to write over it. The invigilator is said to have replied to the petitioner, that there would not be any difficulty, as he had supplied the white papers to the petitioner as Additional Sheet. Believing the invigilator, who has supplied the white sheets to the petitioner, the petitioner wrote his examination on the white sheet and also on the additional sheets supplied by the invigilator. When the results were published, the petitioner was shocked to find that his result in the test was withheld. The petitioner came to know that the second respondent has withheld his result, since he has used the unauthorised white papers as additional answer papers and on this ground the petitioner's answer papers were invalidated. By a Memo. No. 451 -L3/81 dated 26th February, 1981, the petitioner was informed by the second respondent that he has used the plain white sheets as additional answer book while writing the E.D.A.T. Test First Paper held on 3rd November, 1980 and that the petitioner was asked to explain whether the plain white sheets were supplied to him by the Hall Supervisor, and if so, the circumstances under which the said white sheets were supplied to the petitioner. The explanation of the petitioner should reach the office on or before 10th March, 1981, failing which his answer papers would be invalidated and the matter would be reported to the Head of the Department.

(3.) THE petitioner set out true circumstances and explained the second respondent, as to how he came to write in the white sheets at the instance of the invigilator. But the second respondent, by his letter No. 451/L3/81 dated 20th July, 1981, asked the petitioner as to why he should not be debarred from its future examinations and selections to be held by it for the mal -practices committed by him. This has led the petitioner to file W.D. 4928/82 and to seek the issuance of a Writ of Cerrtiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the communication of the second respondent in Memorandum No. 451 -L3/81, dated 20th July, 1981 and to quash the same.