V. Ramasubramanian, J. - (1.) IN response to a Notification bearing No. 15/2014 issued on 26.8.2014 by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter called the TNPSC), for recruitment to 162 posts of Civil Judges in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service, the petitioner in these writ petitions submitted an application on -line. But, his candidature was rejected, on the ground that he did not have experience for a period of three years as a practitioner in law.
(2.) THEREFORE , the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD) No. 17628 of 2014 on the file of the Madurai Bench of this Court. However, the said writ petition was transferred to the file of this Court and by an order passed on 31.10.2014, the petitioner was permitted to write the examinations held on 1st and 2nd November 2014. In accordance with the said order, the petitioner wrote all the four papers. However, when the TNPSC published a list of candidates on 20.2.2015, listing out the registration number of persons, who were short -listed in the written examination for certificate verification, the petitioner found that his registration number did not find a place. Hence, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act on 25.2.2015, seeking copies of the answer sheets in all the four papers along with the key answers in all the four papers. Since the same were not given to him, the petitioner came up with the second writ petition in W.P. No. 5791 of 2015 praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to furnish copies of his answer papers along with key answers in all the four papers. Heard Mr. R.M. Thandayuthapani - the petitioner appearing in person and Ms. C.N.G. Niraimathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
(3.) AT the outset, it is stated by the respondent that on principle, the respondent cannot have any objection for providing copies of answer books and key answers in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay [ : CDJ 2011 SC 759]. But, the objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is that till viva voce is conducted and the process of selection is over, no candidate is entitled to get copies of answer books. According to the learned counsel, in all cases where this Court or the Supreme Court had issued directions for the production of the copies of the answer books, the results had already been declared and therefore, the second writ petition is premature.;