Kavitha.M Vs The Director of School Education

Prayer: Review petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 r/w. Section 114 CPC., to review the order of this Court in W.P. (MD)No.17629 of 2022 dated 27.09.2022.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sakthi Rao

¶14

For R-1 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar, Special Government Pleader.

¶15

For R-2 : Mr.T.Amjadkhan, Government Advocate. * * *

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

2 REV.APLC.(MD)NO.24 OF 2025

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard both sides.

¶21

The applicant herein participated in the recruitment process conducted by TRB in the year 2020-21. The review applicant is an aspirant for the post of PG Assistant Computer Instructor Grade I. The review applicant belongs to SC community. She was not selected since she did not secure the cut-off marks. She therefore filed W.P.(MD)No.17629 of 2022 contending that even though she correctly answered the questions, the key answers are wrong. I declined to go into the matter on the ground that these matters lie in the realm of academic experts and that the writ Court is not competent to go into the issue. Seeking review of the said order, this review application came to be filed. On 26.03.2025, the following order was passed:-

¶22

“ Mrs.M.Kavitha took part in the selection process conducted by Teachers Recruitment Board for the post of Computer Instructor Grade I for the year 2020 – 2021. She secured 93 marks out of 150. She belongs to scheduled caste category. 95 is the cut off mark. She states that two of the answers

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

3 REV.APLC.(MD)NO.24 OF 2025

¶26

written by her had been wrongly evaluated. Challenging her non-selection, she filed W.P. (MD)No.17629 of 2022. Though I found considerable merit in her contention, I could not decide the issue on merits because I felt that it is an issue that should be decided more by the experts. The writ petition therefore suffered dismissal on 27.09.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner filed writ appeal. Before the Hon'ble Division Bench, the writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn and leave was obtained for filing this review application.

¶27

2.Before, I decide the review application on merits, I am of the view that the issue should be first revisited by Teachers Recruitment Board. The review applicant shall appear before the Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board on 04.04.2024 at 04.00 pm. The Member Secretary shall ensure that the subject experts are present on that date. The review applicant is given opportunity to state her case before the experts. She is also entitled to produce all the relevant materials in support of her claim. Thereupon, the experts will consider her submissions and submit a speaking report before this Court. Based on the said inputs and after hearing the learned counsel on

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

4 REV.APLC.(MD)NO.24 OF 2025

¶31

either side, this review application will be disposed.

¶32

3.Call this case on 15.04.2025. ”

¶33

The review applicant appeared before the expert

¶34

committee. The expert committee has given a report upholding the stand of the review applicant. The review applicant is entitled to be awarded three more marks (ie.) 96 marks. She is therefore entitled to be appointed for the post of PG Assistant Computer Instructor Grade I. The order dated 27.09.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.17629 of 2022 is set aside. This review application is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner forthwith. The petitioner will be entitled to seniority along with her batch mates. But she will be entitled to salary only from the date of her actual appointment. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.

¶35

11.07.2025

¶36

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39