Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was working as a leading Fire Officer at Andipatti Fire Station, Madurai District in Tamil Nadu Fire Sub-ordinate Service. While so, the first respondent conducted examination in the month of May,1999 for recruitment of Station Fire Officer for the recruitment year 1996-97. The petitioner was successful in the preliminary examination and he was permitted to write the main examination conducted by the first respondent on 08.05.1999, 09.05.1999 and 16.05.1999. The petitioner passed the written examination and the same was intimated by the first respondent in their memorandum dated 11.04.2000. In the said memorandum, it is stated that the petitioner has been provisionally admitted for physical efficiency test that would be conducted by the Tamil Nadu Fire Service Department. He was directed to appear on 27.05.2000 at Rajarethinam Stadium, Egmore for physical efficiency test. It is stated that there are eight events, out of which the petitioner should select atleast 5 events and atleast he should be selected in 3 out of 5 events. 2. Accordingly, the petitioner participated in the physical efficiency test on 27.05.2000 and he had selected the following five events viz., Long Jump; Running(100 Mtrs); Cricket Ball Throw; Shotput; and Pullups. According to the petitioner, he was successful in the events viz., Shotput, Pullups and Cricket Ball throw. According to the petitioner, the concerned officer who conducted the cricket ball throw test, recorded the marks in the coding sheet at a wrong place. When the same was brought to the notice of the concerned officer by the petitioner, the concerned officer corrected the mistake by scoring out the same and entering it at correct place and also put his signature. 3. The petitioner was expecting that he would be called for oral interview but he was not called for oral interview. Hence, he sent a telegram dated 14.08.2000 seeking to include his name in the selection list. The first respondent sent a letter dated 16.08.2000, informing the petitioner that he did not qualify the physical efficiency test conducted by the second respondent and hence he was not included in the list for oral interview. 4. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 29.08.2000 stating that he was successful in three events and he should be included in the list for oral interview. 4. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 29.08.2000 stating that he was successful in three events and he should be included in the list for oral interview. The first respondent sent a reply dated 08.09.2000 stating that at the first instance, he was disqualified in cricket ball throw event, contrary to the rules, he was given second opportunity and he did not qualify in the first opportunity and therefore he was not considered for oral test. 5. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A.No.7619 of 2000 (W.P.No.45639 of 2006) seeking direction to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the qualified list to appear in the oral test for recruitment to the post of Station Fire Officer in Tamil Nadu Fire Sub-ordinate Service. 6. The second respondent filed the counter affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. The second respondent reiterates the points made in the memorandum dated 08.09.2000 of the first respondent. 7. Heard both sides. 8. Since the controversy lies in narrow compass, I directed the first respondent to produce the selection file containing the coding sheet to verify the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner. 9. After taking many adjournments, the first respondent stated that the coding sheet is not available in their file and other records were produced. The coding sheet is relevant to decide the issue. At this juncture, it is relevant to note the averment made in para 6 (e) of the petition. Paragraph “6(e)” of the petition affidavit is extracted hereunder:- "6(e). It is pertinent to point out here that at the time of physical efficiency test, the applicant participated in Cricket ball throw, after completion of that event successfully he came to the concerned officer who conducted the test and who was giving marks in the coding sheet, has wrongly struck the column against the applicant in respect of the particular event that is “cricket ball throw”, as if he has failed in the event . When the same was brought to the notice of the concerned officer by the applicant by stating that he has been qualified in front of the officers, the said officer regretted for the same stating that due to inadvertence it was so happened(struck off) and immediately corrected the same and also affixed his signature next to the column showing that the applicant was pass in the event and wrongly it was noted in the coding sheet and thereafter corrected.” 10. In para 6(e) of the affidavit, the petitioner had categorically stated that there was a mistake committed by the concerned officer, by wrongly striking out the column against the petitioner in respect of the particular event viz., Cricket Ball throw, as if he failed in the event while he was successful. When the same was brought to the notice of the concerned officer, he corrected the mistake and affixed his signature. According to the petitioner, this was construed by the selection committee, as if the petitioner was given second opportunity. The concerned officer did not make any such statement that the petitioner was given second opportunity. 11. Paragraphs 4, 6 and 8 of the reply affidavit filed by the second respondent are relevant and the same are extracted hereunder:- “4. The applicant participated in the above said 5 events and qualified in 2 events during the conduct of Physical Efficiency Test. As the applicant could successfully complete only two events, he was considered as “Disqualified” and results were communicated to the first respondent. As the applicant did not throw the cricket ball to the prescribed distance, the applicant was first disqualified in the above said event. However, without consulting the Chairman and members of the selection committee, the applicant was given another chance to appear in the test i.e., Cricket ball throw. The applicant obtained the minimum eligibility standard and it was recorded by the Officer concerned. It appears that while all the candidates were given only one opportunity the applicant was given another opportunity to appear in the test i.e., Cricket ball throw without getting prior permission of the Chairman of the selection Committee. When the results were finalized by the selection committee after scrutinizing the computer coding sheet, the committee took the view that the applicant should be disqualified in the physical efficiency test and to include his name in the list of disqualified candidates. When the results were finalized by the selection committee after scrutinizing the computer coding sheet, the committee took the view that the applicant should be disqualified in the physical efficiency test and to include his name in the list of disqualified candidates. Therefore, the claim of the applicant cannot be accepted. As the applicant did not pass the Physical Efficiency Test prescribed in the Tamil Nadu Fire Sub-ordinate Service Rules, the applicant is not eligible to the post of Station Fire Officer. Hence, it is prayed that the original application filed by the applicant may be dismissed.” 6. Regarding para 6(e), it is submitted that the applicant participated in the Cricket Ball throw in which he did not throw the Cricket ball to the prescribed distance. In the first instant, he was disqualified in the Cricket ball throwing. However, without consulting the selection committee the applicant was wrongly given another opportunity and he obtained the minimum eligibility. While all the other candidates were given only one opportunity, the applicant was given yet another opportunity to appear in the test i.e., Cricket Ball throw without getting the prior permission of the selection committee. When the results were finalized by the selection committed and while scrutinizing the computer coding sheet, the committee took a view to disqualify the applicant in the Physical Efficiency Test and to include his name in the list of disqualified candidates. 8. Regarding para 6(i) & (j), it is submitted that, a reply was given to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in this regard stating that, when the computer coding sheet of the individual was scrutinized, it was found that a double entry was made. Since, the applicant didnt obtain the required star rating in the first instance he might have been given for the second chance and when he obtained the minimum eligibility exterior and got one star standard. This should have been brought to the notice of the Chairman or Board members, as soon as it was found in correct. However, no one either by the individual or by the Officials submitted a report in this regard. Since, all this happened without getting prior permission of the Chairman and the members of the Selection Committee, who are the competent authorities, it was decided to disqualify him, for the above said reasons, as no one else was given with second chance in the above said event. Since, all this happened without getting prior permission of the Chairman and the members of the Selection Committee, who are the competent authorities, it was decided to disqualify him, for the above said reasons, as no one else was given with second chance in the above said event. These points were noted in the Computer Coding Sheet itself by the Chairman of the Selection Committee and certified therein indicating his name not being included in the qualified list. Hence, the applicant is not eligible to the post of Station Fire Officer." The respondents have proceeded that the petitioner was given second chance in the Cricket Ball throw event. 12. To ascertain the fact, I directed the first respondent in whose possession, the entire documents are available to produce those documents and more particularly, the coding sheet. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent stated that the coding sheet is not available and the same is recorded. Under such circumstances, I have no option except to come to the conclusion that the contention of the petitioner is correct. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in para 8 of the counter affidavit, the second respondent uses “he might have been given for the second chance”. It is also stated in the paragraphs 4,6 and 8 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was given second chance, for which there is no evidence. Further, the coding sheet is not produced. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a direction as prayed for in the writ petition. 14. Thus, the first respondent is directed to conduct the oral test for the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of passing the oral test, the second respondent has to pass appropriate orders selecting the petitioner to the post of Station Fire Officer within a period of four weeks thereafter. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.