5 Per contra, Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has drawn the attention of this Court to the Counter Affidavit as well as the proceedings of the Joint Director [Re-Evaluation], Directorate of Government Examinations, Chennai-6, as well as the letter dated of the Joint Director [Revaluation], Chennai6, addressed to the Government Pleader, High Court, Madras and would submit that the daughter of the petitioner had secured 77+50=127 marks out of 200 marks in Biology subject and the scanned copies of all the subjects were applied and only on filing of the writ petition, when it came to their knowledge that a wrong answer script was furnished to the petitioner, immediately it was rectified. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that though the daughter of the petitioner did not apply for revaluation of her Biology answer script, the Directorate of Government Examinations, had constituted a Revaluation Committee comprising of three experienced Biology Teachers to revaluate the said answer script and after revaluation, it was found that she secured '1' mark less in the said subject and however, since she did not apply for revaluation, the original mark, viz., “127” has been retained and therefore, the petitioner cannot express any grievance. The learned Government Advocate would undertake that in future such a kind of lapse / mistake will not be committed.
