V.O.Siva vs The Secretary

2026:MHC:3157
WA No. 2163 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
WA No. 2163 of 2026
V.O.Siva
S/o V.G.Osur,
No.25/4, Nadu Street,
Pothaturpet, Pallipattu,
Tiruvallur District
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
VOC Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai 600 003.
2. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
VOC Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai 600 003
3. The Controller of Examination
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
VOC Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai 600 003
..Respondent(s)
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside
the order dated 04.08.2025 passed in WP No.28545 of 2025 on the file of
Hon'ble High Court of Madras, Chennai
For Appellant(s): Mr.R.Dharanidharan
For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Karthik Jagannathan,
Standing Counsel for
Tamil Nadu State Public Service Commission
(TNPSC) for R1 to R3
__________
Page 1 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2026 04:03:33 pm )

2026:MHC:3157
WA No. 2163 of 2026
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
The present writ appeal has been instituted against the writ order dated
04.08.2025 passed in W.P.No.28545 of 2025.
2. The writ petitioner is the appellant. Writ Petiton has been filed
challenging the selection list dated 05.05.2025 and directing the respondent to
validate OMR. The writ Court found that the appellant failed to correctly shade
the question booklet number on the OMR sheet and the system automatically
rejected the answer sheet.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would also submit
that the appellant had not shaded the OMR sheet properly and had made
double shading. The instructions given to the candidates clearly states that the
registration number must be shaded accurately, failing which, the answer
sheet would be deemed to be unfit for valuation. Valuation is carried out
through an automated process and due to improper shading, it is too difficult
to identify which OMR sheet belongs to the appellant. This being the
technology utilised for evaluating the papers, the interference by the Courts
would result in opening a pandora’s box and more so, system based
evaluation done to maintain accuracy and transparency cannot be faulted
with.
__________
Page 2 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2026 04:03:33 pm )

2026:MHC:3157
WA No. 2163 of 2026
4. For all the above reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity in the
writ order impugned. Therefore, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
(S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.)
27-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
VSI
To
1. The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
VOC Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai 600 003
2. The Chairman
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
VOC Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai 600 003
3. The Controller of Examination
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
VOC Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai 600 003
__________
Page 3 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2026 04:03:33 pm )

2026:MHC:3157
WA No. 2163 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
VSI
WA No. 2163 of 2026
27-07-2026
__________
Page 4 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2026 04:03:33 pm )