Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the notification, dated 31.12.2012 issued by way of an advertisement No.337 by the respondents Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (for short TNPSC). 2. By the aforesaid notification, the TNPSC announced the change of scheme of examination and syllabus for Group-I services examination for the year 2012. It also specified the subjects for the preliminary examination, main written examination and oral test. In the preliminary examination, general knowledge paper carries 150 items in general knowledge and 50 items in aptitude and that duration is 3 hours. The maximum mark that will be awarded is 300 marks. Similarly, the main written examination and the oral test was also specified that General Studies paper-I, General Studies paper-II and General Studies paper-III for degree standard with descriptive type. All the three papers will carry 300 maximum marks and that interview and record carries 120 marks. Out of total 1020 marks in the "B" category of main written examination and the oral test, for the candidates belong to SC, SC (Arunthathiyars), ST, MBC/DC, BC and BCM, the minimum qualifying mark is 306 and for other categories, it is 408 marks. The question paper will be circulated in both Tamil and English. The candidates will be allowed to answer the main written examination either in Tamil or in English or partly in Tamil and partly in English and are also allowed to write technical words wherever necessary in either of the language. In the Appendix to the notification, the syllabus for the examination was set out. 3. The petitioner sent a representation on 04.01.2013 stating that the syllabus for the preliminary examination was based on the bulletin No.16, dated 01.08.2004 and it did not include the syllabus for general mental ability, such as logical and behavioral reasoning analogies, data analysis, numerical ability, school arithmetic. But however in the present modified notification, it was indicated that 50 questions will be in the mental aptitude. He had prepared the examinations based on 2004 syllabus and that they had only limited time to prepare for the examinations, i.e., 25 days. The time given will not be sufficient. The additional mental aptitude test cannot be acquainted in this period. Therefore, he requested postponement of the examination to 27.01.2013 as per the notification. He had prepared the examinations based on 2004 syllabus and that they had only limited time to prepare for the examinations, i.e., 25 days. The time given will not be sufficient. The additional mental aptitude test cannot be acquainted in this period. Therefore, he requested postponement of the examination to 27.01.2013 as per the notification. Though the step taken by the TNSPC is a welcome step, but they need time for preparing for the examination. 4. When the writ petition came up on 11.01.2013, this court directed notice to be served on the Standing Counsel for the TNSPC Mr.N.S.Nandakumar. On notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, dated Nil (2013). 5. Heard the arguments of Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel leading Mr.S.Gunalan and Mr.N.S.Nandakumar, learned Standing Counsel for the TNSPC. 6. The contention raised by the petitioner was that the change of scheme for preliminary examination in the middle of the selection process was unjust and they did not provide for level playing field. While the process of recruitment began with notification No.49 of 2012, dated 16.11.2012, the scheme has been made subsequent to the said notification. The scheme of preliminary examination is vital for qualifying to appear for further written examination in Grade-I service and it will affect the petitioner and others who might have encountered other examinations like Banking service and railway service where aptitude test is a compulsory subject. The inclusion of aptitude in the scheme of preliminary examination in the middle of the selection process is a disadvantage. 7. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the Commission has invited application for direct recruitment of 25 vacancies as per the notification No.49/2012, dated 16.11.2012. The earlier scheme of examination was prepared by the Commission on 01.08.2004 and that after several years, the minimum exercise was carried out for updating the subject question papers in the preliminary examination and the main written examination. A committee was constituted to carry on an in-depth study of the existing recruitment system for various recruitment. The practice prevailing in the other State Service Commissions, including the Union Public Service Commission, was also analysed. A committee was constituted to carry on an in-depth study of the existing recruitment system for various recruitment. The practice prevailing in the other State Service Commissions, including the Union Public Service Commission, was also analysed. The revision in the scheme of examination was aimed at simplifying the selection process and to help the candidate to avoid attending multiple examination for certain category of posts and also to enhance the existing standards of selection by bringing in more scrutinized and focused approach, thereby creating highest level of competition among the candidates. The change that has been introduced in Group-I service had expanded the scope of the posts, simplifies the selection process, ensures accuracy in the selection of right candidates and spur enthusiasm among the serious State civil Services aspirants. To test the mental and analytical level of candidates, general aptitude test was included in the preliminary and main examinations at moderate level. The commission has followed due process for standardizing the examination. The revised scheme as well as syllabus was approved by the Committee and also by the Full Commission. It was also posted in the Commission's website on 31.12.2012. An advertisement was also given in two leading dailies, i.e., the New Indian Express and Dinamani on 03.01.2013. 8. It was further stated that the difference between the previous scheme and the modified scheme is in respect of only one aspect, i.e., number of questions apportioned for general knowledge in the scheme already announced was 200, whereas in the revised scheme, the questions for general knowledge is 150 and for aptitude it is 50. The syllabus as well as the scheme for Group I services, i.e., preliminary examination announced in both advertisements are one and the same. The preliminary examination is meant to serve as a screening test. Under the written examination as well as interview, the marks for interview and records are restricted to 12.25% of marks as per the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav case. In view of the change of examination, the last date for receipt of the applications was extended from 6.12.2012 to 7.1.2013. The schedule for the preliminary examination was fixed on 27.01.2013. Due to other contingencies, the Commission had decided and approved the change of preliminary examination from 27.01.2013 to 16.02.2013. This gives all candidates 40 days of preparation for writing the examination. The schedule for the preliminary examination was fixed on 27.01.2013. Due to other contingencies, the Commission had decided and approved the change of preliminary examination from 27.01.2013 to 16.02.2013. This gives all candidates 40 days of preparation for writing the examination. Therefore, the petitioner's original grievance, i.e., the period prescribed was too short was removed. 9. It was further stated that insofar as the scheme was introduced in the middle of the selection process was denied. There is neither change nor inclusion of any de nova topics in the new scheme of syllabus and the contents of the syllabus remain same. Rule 4(1) of the Rules of Procedure of Commission provides for prescribing standards in examination. Therefore, in the interest of securing best talented persons for administration, the Commission had revised and updated the scheme and syllabus for Group-I and other services. 10. The petitioner also filed a written brief reiterating the same contentions. It was further contended that aspirants for the posts have started preparing for the examination based upon the syllabus and model question papers of previous years. Earlier there was no question relating to aptitude and that announcing aptitude questions and giving 25 days was not called for. The UPSC gives 5 months or 3.5 months time from the date of the notification, whereas the respondents have given less than one month. The said contention does not stand to reason as the examination itself has been postponed to take place on 16.02.2013, thereby giving nearly 40 days of preparation time. 11. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Parmender Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (2012) 1 SCC 177 for contending that once the process of selection is started on the basis of the terms and conditions included in the prospectus, it will not be within the competence of the State Government to effect changes in the criteria relating to eligibility for admission. In that case, after the notification was issued, the Government had issued the change in eligibility condition and applied the same to the process of admission, which had already started. It was in that background, the Supreme Court had rejected the power to modify the selection process after the selection process was started. In that case, after the notification was issued, the Government had issued the change in eligibility condition and applied the same to the process of admission, which had already started. It was in that background, the Supreme Court had rejected the power to modify the selection process after the selection process was started. In the present case, the petitioner is yet to write the preliminary examination and the syllabus continues to be same. Besides questions of general knowledge, the candidates are tested on the aptitude for holding the post. There is no material change except marking system and that the petitioner is yet to write the examination. Further more than 40 days time has been given for preparing for the examination. 12. The counsel thereafter referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in K.Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 . In that case, it was stated that rules of game cannot be changed after recruitment process began. But however what was found therein was while the earlier selection process prescribed 75 marks in the written test and 25 marks for the interview, thereby prescribing the ratio of 3:1, the written examination was held for 100 marks as against 25 marks for interview, which had changed the ratio into one of 4:1. It is not clear as to how the said judgment is of any assistance to the case on hand. 13. The counsel also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa and another Vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 . In that case, relaxation was granted after initiation of selection process, which was not permissible. Even that case does not help the case of the petitioner. The counsel further referred to a judgment of the Kerala High Court in Biju Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission reported in 2012 (4) KLT 980 for contending that the public service commission is not entitled to effect any change with reference to qualification, method of appointment and other conditions for recruitment after issuance of notification for selection. In that case, an advertisement was made for the post of Reserve Drivers and that a person holding a valid heavy vehicle driving licence as on the date of submission of the application is a qualification to be considered for selection. In that case, an advertisement was made for the post of Reserve Drivers and that a person holding a valid heavy vehicle driving licence as on the date of submission of the application is a qualification to be considered for selection. But, however, if validity or currency of licence expires and thereafter selection process takes place, the person cannot be disqualified. Even this case has no relevance to the case on hand. 14. It is not clear as to how the petitioner can challenge the introduction of separate marking for aptitude questions. For entering into any post, a person must have a right aptitude, without which he will not be able to serve the post in a manner required for the said post. Testing a person for aptitude is a must for entering into any post. In this case, the post is one for Grade-I post, which is the highest post under the State service. Therefore, it is open to the State as well as the Public Service Commission to test the person's aptitude for entering into the post, lest the very selection process may get vitiated. Striving towards excellence in all spheres of life is the requirement under the fundamental duties set out under Article 51-A of the Constitution. Article 51-A(j) of the Constitution reads as follows: "(j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement;" 15. The fundamental duties must guide the legislative and executive actions of elected or non elected institutions or organisations. It was held so by the Supreme Court vide judgment in Om Prakash and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 402 and in paragraph 38, it was observed as follows: "38. The fundamental duties enjoined on citizens under Article 51-A should also guide the legislative and executive actions of elected or non-elected institutions and organisations of the citizens including the municipal bodies." 16. Similarly in State of Gujarat Vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and others reported in (2005) 8 SCC 534 , the Supreme Court also said that in testing constitutional validity of statutory provisions or an executive act, the fundamental duties will have a significant role to interpret the same and in paragraph 58, the Supreme court had observed as follows: "58. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and others reported in (2005) 8 SCC 534 , the Supreme Court also said that in testing constitutional validity of statutory provisions or an executive act, the fundamental duties will have a significant role to interpret the same and in paragraph 58, the Supreme court had observed as follows: "58. It is thus clear that faced with the question of testing the constitutional validity of any statutory provision or an executive act, or for testing the reasonableness of any restriction cast by law on the exercise of any fundamental right by way of regulation, control or prohibition, the directive principles of State policy and fundamental duties as enshrined in Article 51-A of the Constitution play a significant role....." 17. The need for the Government servant to observe such a fundamental duty came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Govt. of India v. George Philip reported in (2006) 13 SCC 1 and in paragraph 18, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: 18. ...Article 51-A(j) of the Constitution lays down that it shall be the duty of every citizen to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. This cannot be achieved unless the employees maintain discipline and devotion to duty. Courts should not pass such orders which instead of achieving the underlying spirit and objects of Part IV-A of the Constitution have the tendency to negate or destroy the same. 18. In the light of the above, this court do not consider any case is made out to interfere with the modified scheme along with the revised syllabus published by the TNPSC in respect of the selection for the post of Group-I services. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.