Petitioner sought writ for 2 marks in District Judge preliminary exam, claiming key answers were wrong. Court observed while DV Act question key was technically incorrect, mathematical error correction was valid. Petition lacking merit.
The writ petition to grant marks and permit participation in main examinations is dismissed. Costs made easy.
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.33166 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
W.P. No.33166 of 2023 & W.M.P. No.32859 of 2023
R. Paramasivam Petitioner v
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a
writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to grant 2 marks (full mark) to the petitioner having Regn. No.120232161 in the preliminary examination conducted for the recruitment of District Judges (Entry Level) by the respondent authority for Question No.15 and Question No.67 in Booklet No.6294, Series B of Paper – II, considering the answer given by the petitioner regarding the limitation for disposal of a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act as (B) – Receipt of application under Section 12 and answer given by the petitioner for Question No.67 as “C” – 35 kmph, and declare the petitioner as pass
1/8
W.P. No.33166 of 2023
in the preliminary examination and consequently, permit the petitioner to take part
in the further recruitment process for District Judges and the main examinations proposed to be held on 02.12.2023 and 03.12.2023.
For petitioner Mr. S. Thanka Sivan For respondent Mr. B. Vijay Standing Counsel - - - - - -
ORDER
(made by S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.)
The petitioner is a District Judge aspirant, who took up the preliminary
examination conducted therefor by the respondents on 30.09.2023. The gist of the petitioner's grievance is that the key answers given by the respondents for Question Nos.15 and 67 of Paper II, Series B as Option (C) and Option (A), respectively, are wrong and that the answers given by him as (B) and (C), respectively, are the correct ones; since he has been deprived of 2 marks, i.e., 1 mark for each question, owing to the wrong key answers published by the respondents, he could secure only 34.5 as against the required minimum pass mark of 35 and hence, the present writ petition to declare him as having passed in the preliminary examination and to consequently, permit him to partake in the main examinations to be held on 02.12.2023 and 03.12.2023.
2 For the sake of better appreciation of the petitioner's case, it is worth https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis extracting Q. Nos.15 and 67 of Paper II together with options:
2/8
W.P. No.33166 of 2023
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the DV Act”) submitted that Option (B) is the correct answer for Question No.12. As regards Question No.67, his submission is that Option (C) is the correct answer, inasmuch as the very same question, with very same options, was given in the recruitment taken place in 2020, for which, the key answer given by the respondents was Option (C), viz ., 35 Kmph and that being the case, when the same question, with same options, has been given this year, the correct answer cannot be subjected to change.
submitted that for Question No.15, Option (C) is the correct answer as the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis limitation for disposal of a case starts from the date of commencement of trial and
3/8
W.P. No.33166 of 2023
not from the date of filing of the application. According to him, a cursory glance at Section 13 of the DV Act would make it clear that notice will have to be served on the other side, a date will have to be fixed for the parties to appear and only thereafter, the trial commences and in view of the same, Option (C) is the correct answer.
5 As regards Question No.67, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the correct answer is only Option (A), i.e., 34.3 Kmph and not Option (C) i.e., 35 Kmph, as contended by the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel, however, fairly admitted that in the recruitment conducted in 2020, when the very same question with very same options was asked, the key answer given by the respondents was only Option (C), i.e., 35 Kmph and even on this occasion, initially, Option (C) was published as the key answer; however, realising that Option (C) is a wrong key answer predicated on a wrong calculation, this year, the respondents have changed the key answer as Option (C) as per the formula and working scanned below:
4/8
W.P. No.33166 of 2023
7 The facts are not in dispute. As regards Question No.15, we are not inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the fact that in terms of Section 13 of the DV Act, notice will have to be served on the parties concerned and a date will have to be fixed for the parties to appear and only thereafter, the trial commences. Hence, the limitation for disposal of a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, commences only from the date of commencement of trial in terms of Section 12(4) and (5) of the DV Act. Further, we make it clear that only after the commencement of trial, the limitation period for disposal of a case starts.
8 Insofar as Question No.67, as stated earlier, the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the 2020 recruitment, when marks were https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis awarded for those who chose Option (C) i.e., 35 Kmph as the answer, changing
5/8
W.P. No.33166 of 2023
the key answer this year for the very same question, that too, at the eleventh hour, without giving the petitioner an opportunity to submit his objections for the said key answer, cannot be accepted. This mistake pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is fairly accepted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. But, be it noted, just because the respondents had provided a wrong key answer in the earlier recruitment, it is not necessary that the same wrong answer will have to be provided as the correct key answer in the subsequent recruitments too. Is, to err not human? Having erred on the last occasion and even this year initially, realising that Option (C) is a wrong key answer owing to a wrong calculation, the respondents have thought it fit to give the correct key answer as Option (A). In our considered view, two wrongs will not make a thing right and a wrong committed in a recruitment process one year, need not be perpetuated. If at all, this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, will not those candidates who had correctly given their answer as Option (A), be prejudiced?
In view of the above discussion, this writ petition fails as being devoid of merits and as a sequel, is dismissed. Costs made easy. Connected W.M.P. stands closed.
(S.V.N., J.) (K.R.S., J.) 24.11.2023
6/8
W.P. No.33166 of 2023
To
7/8
W.P. No.33166 of 2023
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
cad
W.P. No.33166 of 2023
24.11.2023
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to award marks on an examination paper despite the key answer being corrected after the exam.
Whether the High Court can direct the respondents to re-evaluate the preliminary examination for the District Judge recruitment post-facto.
R. Paramasivam
The Registrar General Madras High Court
The Registrar (Recruitment) Madras High Court
S. VAIDYANATHAN
K. RAJASEKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
