M THALAPATHI RAJINIKANTH Vs. TAMILNADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (TNPSC)
LAWS(MAD)-2020-9-697
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on September 04,2020

M Thalapathi Rajinikanth Appellant
VERSUS
Tamilnadu Public Service Commission (Tnpsc) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

A.P.SAHI,SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,JJ. - (1.) The Petitioner is an advocate who applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) pursuant to a notification/advertisement dated 07.02.2008 of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (the TNPSC). In connection therewith, he took a written examination on 02.08.2008 and 03.08.2008 at Salem. The Petitioner states that he performed very well in the examination, but did not pass the examination when the results were announced. Therefore, he submitted a petition dated 23.10.2008 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [the RTI Act] to the second Respondent for obtaining a copy of his evaluated answer sheets and books as also the evaluated answer sheets and books of other candidates from the same (i.e. scheduled caste) community who participated in the said examination. This information was not provided by the second Respondent to the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority of the TNPSC on 12.12.2008. This information was refused by reply dated 03.01.2009 on the ground that it is confidential information and, therefore, exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act. In these circumstances, the Petitioner filed a second appeal before the third Respondent on 02.02.2009. By order dated 15.07.2009, the third Respondent directed the second Respondent to provide the information requested for by the Petitioner within two weeks of the order.
(2.) The first Respondent challenged the said order of the third Respondent by filing W.P. No.14227 of 2010. Notice was issued on this writ petition on 16.07.2010 and the said writ petition was pending adjudication until 26.09.2019 when it was dismissed as withdrawn.
(3.) After the dismissal of the writ petition, the Petitioner sent representations dated 30.10.2019 and 27.06.2020 to the first Respondent requesting that he be appointed as a civil judge or in any other eligible post because pending the protracted proceedings, he had crossed the age of 45 and, therefore, is not in a position to go through a formal selection process. The present writ petition is filed in view of the failure of the first Respondent to respond to the representations of the Petitioner.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.