Appeal by Recruitment Board against Single Judge order permitting re-evaluation of erroneous answer keys. Bench held impugned order correct as wrong keys unjustly penalized candidates. Appeal dismissed; time for performance extended.
Writ Appeal dismissed; time granted by Single Judge extended by two months.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
Writ Appeal No.2133 of 2021
vs.
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 13.07.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1858 of 2017.
Prayer in W.P.No.1858 of 2017:
Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned Final Answer keys in the Question Numbers 12, 52, 53, 57, 9, 20, 92, 82, 41, 4, 61 (Booklet Series 'B') published by the TRB on 6.1.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to Re-evaluate the OMR sheet in accordance with answer key claimed
by the petitioner with strict proof of Material Evidence from the Standard Text Book and also Provide Grace mark of 10 for the question number 4, 92, and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.
For Appellants : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, Government Advocate
For 1st Respondent : Mr.V.Lakshmikandhan Party-in-Person
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 13.07.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1858 of 2017.
“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions:
(i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the revaluation of an Answer Sheet or scrutiny of an Answer Sheet as a matter of right, then the Authority conducting the examination may permit it;
(ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-valuation or scrutiny of an Answer Sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it), then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of
rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that, a material error has been committed;“
(iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the Answer sheets of a candidate – it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;”
“Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that, no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that, the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that, it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text-books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.
Students who have passed their Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for admission to the Medical Colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is contained in those text-books. Those text-books support the case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have
unquestionably preferred the key answer. But, if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong.”
| Questi | (A) | No. of | (B) | (C) | (D) | (E) | (F) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| on No. | Question | candida | Tentati | Final | Petitio | Answer | Answer |
| as per 'A' series |
No. in 'B' series of the Petition er) |
tes raised objecti ons for the same questio ns 01.11.2 016 - 07.11.2 016 |
ve Answer Key Publish ed by TRB |
Answer Key publish ed by TRB based on subject experts opinion |
ner's claim |
Key as per subject experts (TRB) |
Key as per subject experts (TNPSC) |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) |
| Questi | (A) | No. of | (B) | (C) | (D) | (E) | (F) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| on No. as per 'A' series |
Question No. in 'B' series of the Petition er) |
candida tes raised objecti ons for the same questio ns 01.11.2 016 - |
Tentati ve Answer Key Publish ed by TRB |
Final Answer Key publish ed by TRB based on subject experts opinion |
Petitio ner's claim |
Answer Key as per subject experts (TRB) |
Answer Key as per subject experts (TNPSC) |
| 69 | 04 (petitio ner hasn't claimed this question within the stipulat ed time) |
07.11.2 016 26 |
C | B | Erroneo us Questio n |
Questio n is not complet e |
B |
| 79 | 09 | 29 | B | A | C | C | C |
| 42 | 12 | 29 | B | B | D | D | D |
| 90 | 20 | 2 | A | A | B | B | A |
| 16 | 41 | 5 | C | C | Erroneo us Questio n Both C & D |
Erroneo us Questio n |
Erroneo us Questio n |
| 27 | 52 | 12 | B | B | C | C | C |
| 28 | 53 | 38 | A | A | B | B | B |
| Questi | (A) | No. of | (B) | (C) | (D) | (E) | (F) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| on No. | Question | candida | Tentati | Final | Petitio | Answer | Answer |
| as per 'A' series |
No. in 'B' series of the Petition er) |
tes raised objecti ons for the same questio ns 01.11.2 016 - |
ve Answer Key Publish ed by TRB |
Answer Key publish ed by TRB based on subject experts opinion |
ner's claim |
Key as per subject experts (TRB) |
Key as per subject experts (TNPSC) |
| 07.11.2 016 |
|||||||
| 22 | 57 (petitio ner hasn't cliamed this question within the stipulat ed time) |
24 | B | D | B | B | B |
| 57 | 82 | 3 | B | B | D | D | D |
| Both C | Calcula | ||||||
| & D (in absence of |
Calcula | tor is not permitt |
|||||
| calcula | tor is | ed, so, | |||||
| 47 | 92 | 2 | D | D | tor, it is not |
not permitt |
it is difficu |
| possibl | ed | lt to | |||||
| e to get |
solve the |
||||||
| answer) | problem |
final key-answers of the Teachers Recruitment Board and the learned Single Judge was right in granting the relief to the candidate.
Sd/Deputy Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
(aeb) To:
1.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Road, VOC Nagar, Park Town, Chennai 600 003. 2.The Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, State of Tamilnadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 3.The Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Building, College Road, Chennai-6. +1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.44558 +3cc to Mr.V.Lakshmikandhan, Party in person Sr.43778
WRIT APPEAL No.2133 OF 2021
pm[co] srg 01/10/2021
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can permit re-evaluation of OMR sheets when the answer key is incorrect or erroneous.
Whether there was error in the order dated 13.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.1858 of 2017 directing re-evaluation.
Whether the key-answers furnished by the Teachers Recruitment Board are correct.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P.Referred¶23
Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P. (Civil Appeal No.367 of 2017)
Kanpur University vs. Samir GuptaExplained¶30
Kanpur University vs. Samir Gupta reported in 1983 (4) SCC 309 · Who else cites this
The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board
The Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board
The Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education
V. Lakshmikandhan
The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
S. Vaidyanathan
A.A. Nakkiran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S. Vaidyanathan and A.A. Nakkiran
Parties & counsel
