Dismissed

R. Jeyachitra, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC23 Nov 2020WP(MD)/1840/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a candidate challenging the omission of two questions in a recruitment examination. The Court held that the selection was final as the questions were evaluated, re-evaluation was impossible for the Court, and the delay of five years warranted dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Application for re-evaluation of questions and declaration of invalidity of exam procedure dismissed.

R. Jeyachitra, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)Nos.1840 of 2015

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.11.2020 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD)No.1840 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2015

R.Jeyachitra

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-09.

¶8

The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-06.

¶9

The Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-06. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the omission of question Nos.57 and 80 of the Booklet Series-B of Written Competitive Examination for Direct Recruitment of Post Graduate Assistants (2013-2014 & 2014-2015) for the subject of Tamil for valuation as illegal and null and void and consequently, to direct the third respondent to evaluate the said questions and award marks for the same and consequently, to consider the petitioner for recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Tamil) within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For R1 & R2 : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to evaluate the written examination papers of the petitioner and award

¶14

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

¶15

1/3

¶16

W.P.(MD)Nos.1840 of 2015

¶17

marks for the erroneous questions, more specifically, Question Nos.57 and 80 and accordingly, select and appoint the writ petitioner.

¶18

2.The grievances of the writ petitioner are that two questions were mistakenly printed in the question paper and marks were not awarded. If those two marks are awarded in favour of the petitioner, there is a likelihood of selecting the petitioner for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant.

¶19

3.The counter affidavit filed by the third respondent Teachers Recruitment Board reveals that the prayer itself is a vague and the aforesaid two questions were not omitted from the valuation and therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous.

¶20

4.The two questions as alleged by the petitioner were evaluated for the purpose of awarding marks and accordingly, cut-off marks were fixed. Thus, the writ petitioner cannot seek direction to revaluate the questions. Once the questions are evaluated and a common decision is taken by the Teachers Recruitment Board to award marks or not to award marks, it is to be applied uniformly to all the candidates who participated in the process of selection. In the present case, the said two questions were not omitted by the Teacher Recruitment Board. This apart, the Teachers Recruitment Board has categorically stated that regarding the correctness of the answers, the Court is not an expert body. The Court cannot evaluate the answers or answer sheets.

¶21

5.This being the factum now established, after a lapse of about five years, the selection already made deserves no interference and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶24

rmi

¶25

Note :In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶26

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

¶27

2/3

¶28

W.P.(MD)Nos.1840 of 2015

¶29

¶30

The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai-09. 2. The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-06. 3. The Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-06. +1 CC to the SPL GP SR-22621. +1 CC to Mr.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate SR-22873. W.P.(MD)No.1840 of 2015 23.11.2020 MR(CO) CS(04.12.2020) 3P 6C

¶31

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

¶32

3/3

R. Jeyachitra, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Jeyachitra, v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Kangaraj, Vs the District Collector

The Correspondent, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M.Thanesh Vs The Inspector of Police

A. Sunaikkili, Vs the District Eelemeentary

K. Uthami, Vs the Teachers Recruitment

Tmt. G. Lala Vs the Director of Collegiate