Judgment :- 1. In all the writ petitions, it is the contention of the petitioners that they were appointed as Assistant Surgeon under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules of the Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and posted at various places. 2. Pursuant to notification No.40, dated 01.05.2003, a written cum oral test was conducted for regularisation of the services of the Assistant Surgeons who were temporarily appointed between 14.01.2002 and 03.10.2002. The written examination was objective type, with multiple choice answers and the candidates have to shade the correct answer from out of the choices given in the OMR coding sheet. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that though, they have chosen the correct answers by shading, when the results were published on 24.07.2003, their names were not found in the list of the candidates. Being aggrieved, the petitioners enquired the office of the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, for which a reply dated 04.08.2003 was sent by the Under Secretary, Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, stating that the answer sheets of the abovesaid petitioners were invalidated as they have failed to shade the relevant parts relating to the booklet series in side 2 of the OMR answer sheets and hence, the request for reconsideration of the order will not receive any attention. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the Original Applications before the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai to quash the order dated 04.08.2003 of the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, Chennai and for a consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2, to assess and evaluate the petitioners' answer sheets on merits, call them for the oral test and on the basis of assessment of written and oral tests, regularise the services of the petitioners as Assistant Surgeons in Tamilnadu Medical Service. 5. Though, the petitioners have submitted that the answer sheets have not been evaluated properly and blamed the respondents 1 and 2 in invalidating the answer sheets, there is no provision in the Tamilnadu Public Service Rules and Regulations governing the conduct of competitive examinations for recruitment to various services in Government of Tamilnadu. 6. The relief sought for in this writ petition, is liable to be rejected, as no rule or regulation has been placed before this Court enabling the commission to revaluate the answer sheets. 6. The relief sought for in this writ petition, is liable to be rejected, as no rule or regulation has been placed before this Court enabling the commission to revaluate the answer sheets. A mandamus can be issued only if there is a failure on the part of the authority in discharging their statutory duties or functions. 7. In Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and Others reported in 2004 (6) SCC 714 , the Supreme Court considered a similar issue and at paragraph Nos.7 and 8, held as follows: "7. We have heard the appellant (writ petitioner) in person and learned counsel for the respondents at considerable length. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper. Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. This question was examined in considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Pariotosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth reported in 1984(4) SCC 27 : AIR 1984 SC 1543 . In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an application made to that effect by a candidate. Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed to inspect the answer-books and the Board be directed to conduct re-evaluation of such of the answer-books as the petitioners may demand after inspection. The High Court held that the rule providing for verification of marks gave an implied power to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The High Court held that the rule providing for verification of marks gave an implied power to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment of the High Court was set aside and it was held that in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re-evaluation, no such direction can be issued. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer-books re-evaluated. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated. 8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re-evaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided." 8. In view of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for TNPSC and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, the writ petitions are dismissed. No Costs.