Dismissed

M.Charles Sweetly v. Teachers Recruitment Board

Madras HC30 Jan 2024WP/21607/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Teachers Eligibility Test result declaring the petitioner unqualified. The court dismissed the petition, noting a earlier order had decided identical issues based on expert committee reports determining disputed answers, leaving nothing for further adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no order as to costs.

M.Charles Sweetly Vs Teachers Recruitment Board — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.21607 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 30.01.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶6

W.P.No.21607 of 2017 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.22061 of 2017

M.Charles Sweety

...Petitioner

vs.

Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. Represented by its Member-Secretary. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the examination result of the petitioner (Roll No.17 TE 20807900), quash the same in so far as it related to the declaration of the petitioner not qualified and to issue consequential directions to the respondent to revalue her Answer Book with regard to Question No.9, award one mark for the same and notify the total marks as 82 and declare her as 'Qualified' and call her for certificate verification and pass such other orders.

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

1/7

¶15

For Petitioner : No appearance

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.P.Siddharth Standing Counsel

¶17

W.P.No.21607 of 2017

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the examination result of the petitioner (Roll No.17 TE 20807900) and to quash the same in so far as it related to the declaration of the petitioner not qualified and to issue consequential directions to the respondent to revalue her Answer Book with regard to Question No.9, award one mark for the same and notify the total marks as 82 and declare her as 'Qualified' and call her for certificate verification.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has participated in

¶21

the Teachers Eligibility Test Examination conducted on 30.04.2017. Thereafter, the results was published wherein the petitioner has scored 81 marks, whereas, the pass mark was fixed as 82. The grievance of the petitioner is that she was given “C” series question paper and for Question No.9, the correct answer is “C” and she has marked “A”. But, in the answer

¶22

2/7

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.No.21607 of 2017

¶25

key published by the Teachers Recruitment Board they have noted the correct answer as “C” which is not correct. If they modify the answer as “A” which is the correct one as per the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-I), the petitioner will be awarded one mark and by that her score will be 82 and she will qualified. Hence this petition.

¶26

During the course of the hearing, today, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has placed a copy of the order dated 31.10.2023 in W.P.No.18890 of 2017, contending that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is already decided by this Court in the said order.

¶27

A careful perusal of the order in W.P.No.18890 of 2017, dated 31.20.2023, it appears that this Court on consideration of the report of the Expert Committee and the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No. 34481 of 2018, dated 14.11.2022, wherein, it is held as extracted hereunder:-

¶28

“2. The petitioner participated in the

¶29

Teachers Eligibility Test Examination and secured 81 marks. However, the pass mark is 82. In this context, the petitioner raised a doubt regarding the right

¶30

3/7

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.21607 of 2017

¶33

answer for the question No.148(A-Type) paper II 2017.

¶34

3. Pursuant to the filing of the writ petition, the learned Additional Advocate General furnished the original copy of the expert committee report which reveals that the expert committee arrive at a conclusion that the right answer for the disputed question would be option “D”. Whereas, the petitioner has marked option “B” in her answer sheet as her answer for the said question. Therefore, the petitioner has answered wrongly in respect of the said question and is not entitled for the one mark as per her claim.

¶35

4. Since the matter was referred to the expert committee for consideration, the expert committee has submitted a report stating that option “D” would be right answer for the disputed question and this petitioner is not entitled for the relief as such sought for.

¶36

5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs”.

¶37

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the earlier

¶38

orders passed by this Court in an identical matters, in the considered 4/7

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.No.21607 of 2017

¶41

opinion of this Court, nothing survives for further adjudication in the present Writ Petition and the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for.

¶42

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶43

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶45

30.01.2024

¶46

gba Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No

¶47

¶48

Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai – 600 006. Represented by its Member-Secretary.

¶49

5/7

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.No.21607 of 2017

¶52

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

¶53

GBA

¶54

W.P.No.21607 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.22061 of 2017

¶55

30.01.2024

¶56

6/7

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

W.P.No.21607 of 2017

¶59

(½)

¶60

7/7

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Charles Sweetly v. Teachers Recruitment Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Charles Sweetly v. Teachers Recruitment Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Panneerselvam Vs Tamilnadu State Transport Corp

K.N.Balakrishnan, Vs The Tahsildar

J.Mani, S/o.Joghee Gowder Vs The Tahsildar

E.Kamarajan, Vs The State of Tamilnadu

M.Karthikeyan Vs The Principal Secretary

K.v.Gopalakrishnan, Vs The Principal Secretary /