M.Vilvajothi, Vs the Secretary to the Govt.

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the Final Answer Key list Published in the website of the 2^nd respondent (pertaining to Advertised Number NO. 1/2017 dated 24.02.2017) for TNTET examination 2017 in respect of Social Science subject Paper-II final key answer pertaining to question number 148 and 99 in A Series question paper and quash the same as devoid of merits in so for as petitioner concerned alone and direct the respondent to award two marks to the petitioner and declare the petitioner qualified in the examination and further direct to issue qualified certificate to the petitioner within stipulated time and consider the petitioner's name for recruitment notification vide Adv. No.2 of 2017 dated 27.04.2017 to the post of BT Assistant in the Geography subject within stipulated time by this Court.

¶16

For Petitioner : M/s.Raja Karthikeyan For Respondents : M/s.V.R.Shanmuganathan

¶17

W.P(MD)No. 14297 of 2017

¶18

P.Mariya Inba seeliya ... Petitioner

¶19

Vs.

¶20

2/8

¶21

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

¶22

The Chairman,

¶23

Tamil Nadu Teacher Recruitment Board, 4^th Floor, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai – 600 006.

¶24

The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Teacher Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶25

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Declaration to declare that the Final Key Answer provided by the 2^nd respondent for the Question paper in TNTET -II 2017 (Paper II), Booklet Series D, pertaining to Question Number. 149 as wrong and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to award one Mark in addition to the Marks secured by the Petitioner in respect of Question NO. 149 in Booklet Series D in TNTET Examination paper-II held on 30.04.2017 and to declare that the petitioner bearing Roll No. 17TE23805358 have passed in TNTET Paper II, 2017 within a stipulated time frame as may be fixed by this Court.

¶26

For Petitioner : M/s.Raja Karthikeyan For Respondents : M/s.V.R.Shanmuganathan

¶27

3/8

¶28

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

¶29

COMMON ORDER

¶30

Since the issue involved in both Writ petitions are one and the same the following common order is passed.

¶31

Heard M/s.Raja Karthikeyan, the Learned Counsel appearing for

¶32

the petitioner and M/s.V.R.Shanmuganathan, the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶33

As far as Question No.99 is concerned, the respondents themselves

¶34

had accepted the petitioner's answer is correct. Therefore, she is awarded one mark.

¶35

Regarding Question No.148, the Learned Single Judge of this

¶36

Court has already passed an order stating that the expert committee arrived at the conclusion that the correct answer for the disputed question is option 'D', hence

¶37

4/8

¶38

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

¶39

the claim of the writ petitioners was declined and the writ petition was dismissed. The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:"

¶40

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

¶41

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain these petitions and regarding Question No. 148 and consequently the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

The contention of the petitioner that if the said question is awarded

¶43

one mark, the petitioner would be qualified as TET and would get an employment. The said contention cannot be accepted. If one mark is awarded to the petitioner, then the petitioner would be declared that she is possessing the qualification of TET. But the same would not straight away get any employment. Since the mode of recruitment is no longer available. Now the petitioner ought to write an additional examination prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.149. Furthermore, there are

¶44

5/8

¶45

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

¶46

surplus teachers in the department especially in Secondary Grade Teachers posts. Hence the claim of the petitioner is incorrect and the same is rejected.

¶47