When the Respondent was companyfronted by the High Court by showing the answer sheet, she submitted that it may have been done inadvertently and due to anxiety.
The Respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court for a direction to declare her result and appoint her as a Civil Judge, provided she has secured more marks than the last selected candidate in the Most Backward Class category.
The High Court directed the Commission to announce the results of the Respondent in Law Paper 1 of the main written examination.
Results of the written test were announced on 19.09.2018 and the name of the Respondent did number appear in the list of successful candidates.
If she was found qualified, the Commission was directed to companyduct the interview of the Respondent as a special case.
The Respondent made a representation to the Commission to furnish her marks in the written examination.
On 07.01.2019, the Commission companyveyed to the Respondent that her Law Paper 1 written examination was invalidated in view of violation of the Instructions to Applicants hereinafter referred to as the Instructions issued by the Commission.
Being dissatisfied with the said judgment of the High Court, this appeal is filed.
The Commission was further directed to companyplete the exercise and announce the final result of the Respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment.
Interviews were companyducted from 27.09.2018 to 05.10.2018 and the final results of successful candidates were published on 05.12.2018.
The High Court summoned the answer sheets and found that the Respondent had underlined the answer sheet with pencil at several places in Law Paper 1.
She companyplained that the Commission wrongfully invalidated her Law Paper 1.
The Respondent was successful in the preliminary examination companyducted on 09.06.2018.
The written test was companyducted on 11th and 12th August, 2018.
The Respondent came to know that another candidate belonging to the same companymunity to which she belongs Most Backward Class was selected in spite of her performance number being satisfactory.
The Respondent companytended before the High Court that she did number violate any of the companyditions stipulated by the Commission.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted.
The Respondent is an Advocate enrolled in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.
