The petitioner sought a writ for an additional mark and seniority after a Division Bench order mandated marks for a disputed TET question but the Board failed to act. The single judge held the Board at fault for the delay and granted relief.
Award one additional mark for the petitioner, declare them qualified in the 2013 TET, and revise seniority.
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.No.26678 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.No.26678 of 2023
Vimalraj.P ...Petitioner
Vs
The Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board College Road, Chennai – 600 006 ...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to grant the rightful one mark to the petitioner in the TET test conducted on 18.08.2013 and declare that the petitioner herein as a TET qualified candidate and grant seniority accordingly.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sandeep Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.M.Alagu Gowtham Government Advocate
W.P.No.26678 of 2023
ORDER
The petitioner had participated in the Teachers Eligibility Test
[TET] conducted by the respondent on 18.08.2013, in which he had secured 89 marks. In the said test, he had questioned the correctness of the final answer key for Question No.107 (D-type) in Paper -2, which question and answer key read as follows:
“ In which language the song “vande Matharam” was written first
a. Bengali c.Urdu
b. Marathi d.Sanskrit”
final answer key showed '(d) Sanskrit' to be the correct answer. The issue was challenged by one K.Veeramani before a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.32316 of 2013 and the writ petition came to be allowed, as against which the Teachers Recruitment Board has preferred an intra-
court appeal in W.A.No.1040 of 2017 and by a judgment dated 12.10.2017, the order of the learned single Judge was upheld and a direction was issued to Teachers Recruitment Board to award one additional mark to the candidates who opted either choice (a) or choice (d) for Question No.107. The relevant portion of the order reads as
2/6
W.P.No.26678 of 2023
follows:
'6. In such view of the matter, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that both the answers viz., “Bengali” (Option A) and “Sanskrit” (Option D) are correct. Therefore, the respondent-Board shall award one mark to the candidates, who answered it as “Bengali” as well as to the candidates who answered it as “Sanskrit”.'
Recruitment Board to award one mark to the candidates who had participated in the TET examination of the year 2013 but such a mark was not awarded to the petitioner, which had prompted him to file the present writ petition.
W.P.No.26678 of 2023
K.Veeramani's case has become final and in view of the directions given therein, all the candidates who opted either Choice (a) or Choice (d) to Question No.107 would be entitled for one additional mark. There was no reason for the Board to expect all the candidates to approach them seeking for such additional mark. As a matter of fact, the direction of the Bench was to the Board to award one additional mark for the candidates who had participated and attempted Question No.107 in the Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by them on 18.08.2013. If that be so, the delay and laches is attributable to the Board only and not to the petitioner. This apart, the failure to award one mark to the petitioner is also in violation of the directions of Hon'ble Division Bench.
W.P.No.26678 of 2023
one additional mark and if that one mark is awarded, the petitioner's total score would be 90 marks and accordingly, he would have been declared as a successful candidate in the TET in the year 2013 itself.
15.11.2023
Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order gpa
Note: Issue order copy on 17.11.2023.
To
The Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board College Road, Chennai – 600 006
5/6
W.P.No.26678 of 2023
M.S.RAMESH,J.
gpa
W.P.No.26678 of 2023
15.11.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to an additional mark and declaration of qualification in the 2013 TET based on the Division Bench order in K.Veeramani’s case.
Whether the delay in approaching the High Court attracts dismissal on grounds of laches when the Teachers Recruitment Board failed to implement the earlier judicial direction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vimalraj.P
The Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board College Road, Chennai
M.S. Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
