Judgment : 1. The “Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission” (TNPSC) conducted competitive examination for CSSE-I (Group-II) on 04.11.2012. The petitioner is one of the applicants and his registration number is 17141095. The petitioner participated in the written examination. The question paper was of objective type containing as many as 200 questions carrying a total number of 300 marks. After the written examination was over, the respondent published tentative key answers for the same. As per the said tentative key answers, the petitioner had calculated that he should have secured 210 marks out of 300 marks. The next stage is conduct of interview of the shortlisted candidates based on the marks secured in the written examination. The petitioner came to know that the respondent held interview on various dates during the year 2013. But, the petitioner was not called for the interview though some of the candidates who would have secured less marks were called. Since the petitioner does not know the exact marks secured by him in the written examination, he appears to have made a representation to the respondent to publish the complete marks secured by all the candidates in the written examination. Since the same was not done, the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking appropriate directions. 2. This writ petition came up for hearing on 20.02.2014, on which date, notice was ordered to the respondent. Thereafter, on 03.03.2014, the learned standing counsel for the respondent TNPSC entered appearance. On 04.03.2014, Mr.N.S.Nandakumar, learned standing counsel for the respondent made appearance and took adjournment. The matter again came up for few hearings and the respondent has not chosen to file any counter. This petition again has come up today for admission. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is no reason for the respondent to decline to publish the marks of all the candidates who had appeared for the written examination before calling for the interview. In this regard, the learned counsel has made reliance on the order passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.23073 of 2012 etc. batch (Ranjithkumar Vs. In this regard, the learned counsel has made reliance on the order passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.23073 of 2012 etc. batch (Ranjithkumar Vs. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission) dated 04.01.2013, wherein, under similar circumstances, this Court had issued a direction to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to publish the marks of all the candidates in the written examination in the official website of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The learned counsel would further submit that the said order was complied with and the marks were published. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent is bound to publish the marks in the instant case also. 5. Mr.N.S.Nandakumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent would refer to a letter of the Under Secretary to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in Letter No.1959/LCD-B1/2014, dated 05.03.2014 addressed to him. By taking me through the said letter, the learned standing counsel for the respondent would submit that final selection is in progress and the same has not been completed. He would further submit that the marks secured by the petitioner in the written examination, the cut off marks and other particulars could be furnished if it is required in the Court case. In the letter, the Under Secretary has further requested the learned standing counsel to maintain the confidential nature of the subject. 6. The learned standing counsel for the respondent would further submit that the petitioner had not been called for the oral test under the Scheduled Caste (General) category as he had not secured the required cut off marks. He would further submit that so far as the candidates with Registration No.17601211, as referred to in the affidavit of the petitioner, is concerned, of course, it is true that he also belongs to Scheduled Caste (General) but he falls under the special category viz., differently abled person and therefore though he had secured lesser marks than the petitioner, he was admitted for interview. The learned counsel would further submit that it is true that as per the orders of this Court dated 11.09.2012 in W.P.No.22815 of 2012, cut off marks and final answer key relating to CSSE-I Examination held on 30.07.2011 were published by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 7. I have considered the above submissions. 8. The learned counsel would further submit that it is true that as per the orders of this Court dated 11.09.2012 in W.P.No.22815 of 2012, cut off marks and final answer key relating to CSSE-I Examination held on 30.07.2011 were published by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 7. I have considered the above submissions. 8. From the rival submissions, the crucial question which emerges for consideration is as to whether the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is legally justified in withholding the publication of the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination without making it public before calling the shortlisted candidates for interview. The stand of the respondent that marks secured by the candidates in the written examination and the relevant cut off marks will be published only after the final selection is over cannot be accepted. As a matter of fact, similar stand taken on an earlier occasion by the respondent in the batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.23073 of 2012 etc. batch, was negatived by this Court by referring to the legal position based on several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. The said order was duly complied with by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. In my considered opinion, in this scenario, where transparency is the hallmark of fairness on the part of the authorities concerned, there can be no justification to decline to publish the marks until the final results are published. If only the marks secured in the written examination are published, the candidate would be in a position to know as to why he was not called for the interview. When the marks can be disclosed to the individual candidates under the Right to Information Act, I do not find any reason as to why such information should be withheld without making it public thereby driving thousands of candidates to approach the respondent under the Right to Information Act. Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, arbitrariness in any form has to be avoided. As a well known saying “Caesar's wife must be above suspicion” goes, in order to inform the general public that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has been fair in its approach, it ought to have published the marks of the candidates before going to the next stage viz., calling the candidates for the interview. As a well known saying “Caesar's wife must be above suspicion” goes, in order to inform the general public that the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has been fair in its approach, it ought to have published the marks of the candidates before going to the next stage viz., calling the candidates for the interview. In view of the said legal position, I am inclined to issue the direction as prayed for. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to publish the marks of all the candidates in the written examination who had appeared in the CSSE-I Examination held on 04.11.2012, in the official website of the respondent, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.