The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking re-evaluation of a PG Assistant exam to award five marks for specific questions, holding that the decision now deserves no interference as the selection was already finalized.
The writ petition is dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)Nos.2401 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.11.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD)No.2401 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
K.Uthami
Vs.
The Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai 600 006, Rep. by its Member Secretary
... Respondent
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein to re-assess the answers of the petitioner to question Nos.6,7,34,57 and 78 in D-Series Book let for the purpose of awarding five marks to right answers and consequently, permit the petitioner for certificate verification for selection of PG Assistant for the year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jegannathan for M/s.Veera Associates For Respondent : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to evaluate the written examination papers of the petitioner and award marks for the erroneous questions, more specifically, Question Nos.6, 7, 34, 57 and 78 and accordingly, select and appoint the writ petitioner.
2.The grievances of the writ petitioner are that these five questions were mistakenly printed in the question paper and marks were not awarded. If these five 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.
3.The counter affidavit filed by the respondent Teachers Recruitment Board reveals that the prayer itself is a vague and the aforesaid five questions were not omitted from the valuation and therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous.
4.The five questions as alleged by the petitioner were evaluated for the purpose of awarding marks and accordingly, cut-
1/2
W.P.(MD)Nos.2401 of 2015
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 five 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.
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.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-II)
// True Copy //
rmi
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.
To
The Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
+1 CC to M/s.VEERA ASSOCIATES, Advocate SR-22559. +1 CC to the SPL GP SR-22620 .
MR(CO) CS(04.12.2020) 2P 4C
2/2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can direct the Teachers Recruitment Board to re-evaluate specific exam questions after the Board has finalized the cut-offs.
Whether the selection of a Post Graduate Assistant can be interfered with after a lapse of five years.
Whether the Court is competent to evaluate answer sheets to determine correctness for academic purposes.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Uthami
The Teachers Recruitment Board
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
