Allowed

A.Priyanka, v. the Principal Secretary to

Madras HC25 Feb 2019WP(MD)/12922/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the second respondent to award one mark to the petitioner for a specific question in the TNTET Paper-II 2013 exam, declaring her as eligible for recruitment as B.T. Assistant (English) subject to satisfying other requirements.

What did the court decide?

The respondents directed to award one mark to the petitioner, issue a certificate, and consider her for recruitment if she fulfills all qualifications.

A.Priyanka, Vs the Principal Secretary to — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.02.2019 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶4

WP(MD)No.12922 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.11808 of 2018

A.Priyanka

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of School Education, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶9

2.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai – 6. ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to award one mark for the answer given by the petitioner for question No.107 (paper-II - D - Series) in TNTET paper II-2013 and in consequence thereof declare the candidature of the petitioner as eligible and provide her with the post of B.T.Assistant (English) on the basis of revised mark .

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jothiramalingam For Respondents : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, Special Government Pleader

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the 2^nd respondent to award one mark for the answer given by the petitioner for question No.107 in TNTET paper II - 2013 and in consequence thereof declare the candidature of the petitioner as eligible and provide her with the post of B.T.Assistant (English) on the basis of revised mark .

¶14

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that she appeared in TNTET Paper - II, 2013 and for question No.107, though she shaded correct answer, in the tentative answer key released by the 2^nd respondent, wrong answer was given and hence, by loosing one mark, she could score only 81 marks against the cut off marks, ie., 82. In this connection, she submitted a representation dated 13.08.2018 to the respondents, requesting to provide her one mark for that question and for consequential reliefs. Since nothing has come forth, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the issue in this writ petition is covered by a judgment of this Court in WP

¶16

¶17

(MD)Nos.17694 and 14471 of 2018, dated 19.09.2018, wherein this Court directed the authorities to grant one mark. Hence, he prayed that the same direction shall be issued in this case also, which is agreeable by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶18

Under such circumstances, this Court, without granting the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, directs the respondents to give one mark to the petitioner for question No.107 in Serial Code -D in TNTET Paper -II 2013 and issue certificate to that effect and consider the case of the petitioner, in case of any selection / recruitment, if she fulfils all other qualifications /requirements.

¶19

5.With the above directions, the writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS III)

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

¶24

1.The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of School Education, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶25

2.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai – 6.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.M.JOTHIRAMALINGAM, Advocate, SR.No.50492

¶27

ORDER MADE IN WP(MD)No.12922 of 2018 25.02.2019

¶28

DSK KK/SAR-/26.03.2019/2P-4C

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A.Priyanka, v. the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Priyanka, v. the Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Kannan, Deputy Manager Vs the Director, Milk Production

A.Ponnudhurai, Vs the Management of Tamilnadu

T.Parimalavasagam Vs the District Collector Cum

R.Seethalakshmi, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

N.Subbarao Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

K.Ravichandran, Vs the Chairman