N.Shanthi, v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.09.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.Nos.11596, 12444, 17964, 21971, 27699 and 35075 of 2013, 2119 and 2410 of 2014, 206, 2873, 3662, 5296, 15695 and 15855 to 15857 of 2015 and MP.Nos.1/2013 (4 MPs.), 2 of 2013, 1 of 2015 (5 MPs.), 2 of 2015 (3 M.Ps) and WMP.Nos.30893 to 30896, 33097 of 2016 N.SHANTHI ... PETITIONER in WP No.11596 of 2013 MRS.G.LAVANIYA ... PETITIONER in WP No.12444 of 2013 R.RAJESH ... PETITIONER in WP No.17964 of 2013 V.SANKAR RAM V.BATHRAJALAM ... PETITIONER in WP No.21971 of 2013 D.SUGANTHI ... PETITIONER in WP No.27699 of 2013 L.SHARMILA JOSEPHINE ... PETITIONER in WP No.35075 of 2013 D.VELMURUGAN ... PETITIONER in WP No.2119 of 2014 T.GNANASAKERAN ... PETITIONER in WP No.2410 of 2014 R.JAYAPRAKASH ... PETITIONER in WP No.206 of 2015 K.VIJAYALAKSHMI ... PETITIONER in WP No.2873 of 2015 A.ANANDHI ...

PETITIONER in WP No.3662 of 2015 G.RAMU ... PETITIONER in WP No.5296 of 2015 V.PRATHIBA ... PETITIONER in WP No.15695 of 2015 D.REXLANT MARY ... PETITIONER in WP No.15855 of 2015 D/O.P.DOMINIC M.NITHYA ... PETITIONER in WP No.15856 of 2015 R.SASIREKA ... PETITIONER in WP No.

vs 1 THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-9. ... 1st RESPONDENT in WP No.11596 of 2013, W.P.NO.35075/13 ... 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.17964/13, W.P.3662/15 ... 1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.2873/15 AND W.P.15695/15 AND 15855 TO 15857/15 2 THE CHAIRMAN TEACHER RECRUITMENT BOARD COLLEGE ROAD CHENNAI-6. ...1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.2410/14, W.P.206/15 ...2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.11596/13, W.P.35075/13 ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.21971/13 ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.27699/13 ...2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.2119/14 ...5TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.15695/15 AND W.P.15855/15 TO W.P.15857/15 3 THE MEMBER SECRETARY TEACHER RECRUITMENT BOARD COLLEGE ROAD CHENNAI-6. ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.11596/13 ...1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.17964/13 ...2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.2873/15 ...1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.3662/15 4 THE DIRECTOR, TEACHER RECRUITMENT BOARD, COLLEGE ROAD, CHENNAI-6. ... 1ST RESPONDENT in WP No.12444 of 2013 5 THE JOINT DIRECTOR (PERSONAL) TEACHER RECRUITMENT BOARD 4TH FLOOR EVK SAMPATH MALIGAI COLLEGE ROAD CHENNAI-6.

... 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.12444/13

6 THE MEMBER SECRETARY TEACHER RECRUITMENT BOARD GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU 4TH FLOOR EVK SAMPATH MAALIGAI DPI COMPOUND COLLEGE ROAD CHENNAI-600 006.

...1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.3662 OF 2015 7 THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION , EVK SAMPATH MAALAIGAI DPI COMPOUND COLLEGE ROAD CHENNAI-600 006.

...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.17964/13 8 THE SECRETARY (STATE ELIGIBILITY TEST 2012) BHARATHIYAR UNIVERSITY COIMBATORE ... 1ST RESPONDENT in WP No.21971 of 2013 9 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION (STATE ELIGIBILITY TEST 2012) BHARATHIYAR UNIVERSITY COIMBATORE 641 046 ...2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.21971 OF 2013

10. THE REGISTRAR THE PERIYAR UNIVERSITY, SALEM 636 011 ...1ST RESPONDENT in WP No.27699 of 2013

11. THE PRINCIPAL GIRIVASAN COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (B.ED. ) NO.2/969 A-V S.K.BHARATH BUILDING (EXTN) R.S. WEST SAKTHI COLONY NELLINAGAR KUMARASMYPET PO DHARMAPURI 636703 ... 2ND RESPONDENT in WP No.27699 of 2013

12. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FORT. ST. GEORGE CHENNAI 600 009. ...1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.2119/13 ...2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.3662/15

13.THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CEO OFFICE, THIRUVANNAMALAI, THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT. ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.2119/14 14.THE DIRCTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DPI CAMPUS, COLLEGE ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006. ... 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.2410/14,W.P.206/15 ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.15695/15, WP.15855/15 TO 15857/15 15.THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF KALLAR RECLAMATION BACKWARD CLASS AND MOST BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE DEPARTMENT MADURAI ...RESPONDENT IN W.P.206/15 16.G.BHUVANESWARI ROLL NO. 13PG19020584 C/O.MEMBER SECRETARY TEACHER RECRUITMENT BOARD EVK SAMPATH MALIGAI DPI COMPOUND COLLEGE ROAD CHENNAI - 6. ...3RD RESPONDENT IN W.P.3662/15 17.T.M.NIDHYA GOWDHAMI ROLL NO. 13PG08020169 C/O.MEMBER SECRETARY TEACHER RECRUITMENT BOARD EVK SAMPATH MALIGAI DPI COMPOUND COLLEGE ROAD CHENNAI - 6. ...4TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.3662/15 18.THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE OFFICER, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFFICER, VELLORE, VELLORE DISTRICT.

...1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.5296/15 19.THE TEACHER RECRUITMENT BOARD, DPI COMPOUND, COLLEGE ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006. ...2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.5296/15 20.THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF KALLAR RECLAMATION MADURAI MADURAI-20.

...4TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.15695/15, W.P.15855/15 TO 15857/15 21.THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MOST BACKWARD & DE-NOTIFED COMMUNITIES WELFARE CHENNAI-600 005.

...2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.15695/15 IN

Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to Prayer in WP No.11596 of 2013:

directing the respondents to call the petitioner for Certificate Verification to the Post of B.T.Assistant (Tamil) in the Middle Schools/ High Schools by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 8.1.2013. Prayer in WP No.12444 of 2013:

call for the records of the Provisional Selection Lists published in the 2nd Week of April 2013 by the respondents for the Recruitment of PG Teachers (Botony) for the year 2011-2012 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same. Prayer WP No.17964 of 2013:

calling for records relating to Impugned portion of the notification/Advertisement No.04/2013, dated:28-05-2013 calling one post reservation for women category in GT (General Turn) and one post reservation for women category in SCA (Schedule Caste Arunthathiyar) for faculty in Tourism and Travel management vide Faculty Code D-18 in Annexure-I and Annexure-III vide Faculty Code D-18 details of Backlog vacancies in the notification / Advertisement No.04/2013 dated 28/5/2013 and quash the same as highly illegal and consequently direct the respondents to correct the Back log Vacancies in Annexure III D-18 as G7-G1 MBC G-1 and SCAW-1 and thereby give appointment to the petitioners under general category in G7(General Turn) and general category in MBC Most Backward class for faculty in Tourism and Travel Management vide Faculty D-18 in the notification/Advertisement No.04/2013 dated 28/05/2013 and thus render Justice prayer Amended as per order dated 11/3/2016 by MMSJ in WMP 6451/16 in W.P.17964/13.

Prayer in WP No.21971 of 2013:

directing the 3rd respondent to allow the petitioner to participate in the process of selection for direct recruitment of Assistant Professor based on the notification issued by the 3rd respondent dated 28.5.2013 in anticipation of pass certificate in SET 2012 conducted by the 1st and 2nd respondent and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court.

Prayer in WP No.27699 of 2013:

directing the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of PG Assistant (Botany) on merits in pursuant to the Notification issued by the 3rd respondent for direct recruitment to the post of PG Assistant 2012-13 dt 20.5.2013 based on B.Ed., Degree Certificate obtained by the petitioner from the 1st respondent University in June 2008.

Prayer in WP No.35075 of 2013:

direct the respondents to consider the petitioner bearing Enrollment No.12TE24475371 for the appointment for the post to teacher for classes VI to VIII standards by giving the benefit of the amended notification F.No.61-1/2011/NCTE (N & S) dated 29.7.2011 in the recruitment process Graduate Assistants for the classes from VI to VIII standards.

Prayer in WP No.2119 of 2014:

to forbearing the respondents from insisting the petitioner to produce Teacher Eligibility Certificate for an appointment of Secondary Grade Teacher as he has completed the selection process even before the first eligibility test conducted by the 2nd respondent on 12.7.2012 and consequently direct the 1st and the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher based on the certificate verification conducted on 21.10.2009.

Prayer in WP No.2410 of 2014:

directing the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner (Roll No. 12PG10010149) to the post of PG Assistant in Economics based on the merit in the selection by allowing the petitioner to participate in the Certificate Verification with proper communication within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

Prayer in WP No.206 of 2015:

directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to issue appropriate orders for appointing the petitioner to the post of B.T.Assistant Physics based on the Selection conducted by the Teacher Recruitment Board as per the provisional select list for BC and MBC Department dt 14.10.2014 with all consequential and other attendant benefits, within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court.

Prayer in WP No.2873 of 2015:

directing the Respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of P.G.Assistant, Economic Teacher, Tamil Medium in any one of the Government Schools.

Prayer in WP No.3662 of 2015:

Calling for the records from the respondents 1st respondent relating to the Notification of the Teachers Recruitment Board Director Recruitment of Post Graduate Assistants for the year 2012-2013 published on 20.10.2014 read with the Provisional Selection List for Certificate Verification of the same date and the consequential publication of Provisional Sponsor Merit List after Certificate Verification for Post Graduate Assistant 20122013 subject English, by the 1st respondent on 5.2.2015 for the post of Post Graduate assistant 2012-2013, quash the same in so far as it does not consider the name of the petitoner and appointing her over and above the name of the 3rd respondent and the consequently direct Respondents 1 and 2 to issue appointment order to the Petitioner to the post of Post Graduate assistant 2012-2013 subject English w.e.

f the date the appointment orders were issued to the other candidates who secured 83 marks after including the Employment Exchange weighting weightage mark as interms of clause 12 of the Advertisement No.02/2013 dated 9.5.2013 published by the 1st Respondent together with all the monetary Service benefits.

Prayer in WP No.5296 of 2015:

directing the respondents to sponsor and include the name of petitioner in the list for the post of Vocational Instructor (Computer Instructor) in MBC, Inter Caste Marriage Priority Category for the selection and appointment to the post of Vocational Instructor (Computer Instructor) along with those whose names have been sponsored by the 1st respondent, accordingly consider the candidature of the petitioner herein for selection and appointment to the post Vocational Instructor. Prayer in WP No.15695 of 2015:

directing the 2nd respondent to transfer the petitioner to any one of the Higher Secondary Schools under the control of the 3rd respondent on the basis of the petitioner representation dated 09.03.2015.

Prayer in WP No.15855 to 15857 of 2015:

directing the 2nd respondent to transfer the petitioner to any one of the Higher Secondary Schools under the Control of the 3rd respondent on the basis of the petitioner representation dated 23.03.2015, 16/3/15 and 11/3/15.

In W.P.No.11596/2013:

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganesan for Mr.S.Vijayan For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate In W.P.No.12444/2013:

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ponnusamy For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate In W.P.No.17964/2013:

For Petitioner : M/s.Achari and Antoni Associates For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate In W.P.No.21971/2013:

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran For Respondents : No appearance for R1 & R2 Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate for R3 In W.P.No.27699/2013:

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran For Respondents : No appearance for R1 Mr.B.Rabu Manohar for R2 Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate for R3 In W.P.No.35075/2013:

For Petitioner : Mr.B.S.Manjunath For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate In W.P.No.2119/2014:

For Petitioner : Mr.C.P.Sivamohan For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate

In W.P.No.2410/2014:

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate for R1 & R2 In W.P.No.206/2015:

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate for R1 & R2 No appearance for R3 In W.P.No.2873/2015:

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parthasarathy For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate for R1 & R2 In W.P.No.3662/2015:

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravana Kumar For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate for R1 & R2 No appearance for R3 & R4 In W.P.No.5296/2015:

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Dharani For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate for R1 & R2 In W.P.No.15695/2015:

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gnanasekar For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate for R1,3,4 & 5 Mr.R.S.Selvam, Government Advocate for R2 In W.P.Nos.15855 to 15857/2015:

For Petitioners in all 3 WPs : Mr.M.Gnanasekar For Respondents in all WPs. : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate for R1,3,4 & 5 Mr.R.S.Selvam, Government Advocate for R2

C O M M O N O R D E R The relief sought for in these writ petitions are for a direction to direct the respondents to pass an appropriate order on the representations submitted by the respective petitioners in respect of awarding of marks in respect of certain objectionable questions and answers and allow the petitioners to participate in the certificate verification.

2.All the writ petitioners had participated in the process of recruitment for selection to the posts of Post Graduate Assistants in the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Service. It is not disputed that all the writ petitioners had participated in the process of selection. After participating in the written examinations, the petitioners found that certain questions and answers were not matching or defective and they could not able to answer the questions properly. Thus, the writ petitioners were constrained to submit a representation to the competent authorities to consider their representations and award marks in respect of all those objectionable questions or answers. 3.

The grievance of the writ petitioners are that they have categorically specified the defective and objectionable questions and answers in their representations, the same had not been considered by the respondents, which resulted in denial of selection to all these writ petitioners. In other words, the petitioners were deprived of their right of selection on account of the errors occurred in the questions and answers. Thus, the petitioners have chosen to prefer the present writ petitions for a direction to consider the representation in respect of their claims for award of marks for the defective and erroneous questions and answers.

4.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents elaborately contended that the representations of the respective writ petitioners were forwarded to the Expert Committee constituted for the purpose of resolving the issues in relation to the defective questions and answers. The Expert Committee constituted for the purpose of considering the issues, consists of two members namely, Dr.S.Chidambaravinagagam, Associate Professor of Presidency College, Chennai - 5 and Dr.S.Arul Antony, Associate Professor of Presidency College, Chennai - 5.

5.The Expert Committee constituted had gone into the allegations raised by the writ petitioners and furnished their reports in detail, including the correct answers and the questions in this regard. The copy of the report is enclosed in the typed set of papers filed by the respondents and the same

contains the reference notes and all other particulars, stating that the Expert Committee has elaborately considered all the possible answers and submitted their report in respect of the issues raised by the petitioners in this regard. 6.Relying on the said report, the learned Government Advocate contended that based on the report submitted by the Expert Committee, a revised evaluations were done in respect of all these writ petitioners and wherever applicable, additional marks were awarded and accordingly, the final list of selection was published. The representations submitted by the writ petitioners were considered based on the report of the Expert Committee, the re-evaluations were done by the authorities competent and the eligible candidates were awarded with marks and thereafter, the final selection list was prepared and published. Subsequently, based on the final selection list, appointments were also provided to all the selected candidates and they have joined in service.

7.In paragraph 6 onwards in the counter affidavit, the details of the objectionable and defective questions and the answers arrived were elaborately deal with by the respondents, which all are extracted hereunder:

"5. It is respectfully submitted that the 1st Respondent Board published the tentative key answers for all subjects on the Board's Website on 19.07.2017 and advised the candidates to submit the representations regarding objections, if any, to the tentative key answers with relevant proof of authority on or before 23.07.2017.

6. It is respectfully submitted that a committee of Subject Experts with academic excellence examined the representations received from the candidates, discussed the objections on the basis of authoritative texts and framed final key answers. After thorough scrutiny, final and revised key answers were prepared by the Subject Experts and the Optical Mark Reader Answers sheets of all the candidates were evaluated on the basis of the final and revised key answers. Subsequently the 1st Respondent Board published the provisional result of the written competitive examination on 11.08.2017.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner avers that Final key answers published by the Teachers Recruitment Board is not correct, in respect of Question Nos., Book-let Series as detailed below:-

Question No. of "A"

Series Question No.

of "D"

Series Key answer of the Petitioner Tentative Key Final key B/C None A/B There is no change in the tentative keys as well as in the final key and for the Questions 3, 12, 20, 21, 25, 38, 39, 66, 70, 77, 78, 86, 99, 101, 102, 110, 121, 135 and 140 in series "D" the subject experts have furnished their opinion as follows:- *(Refer Annexure)

Sl.

No Que sti on Nos Questions 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

--------used the term 'competence motivation' to describe the child's intrinsic need to deal with the environment.

(A)McClelland (B)Carl Rogers (C)Abraham Maslow (D)Robert White 18.

In a Mathematics activity session, because of the specificity of the problems, the student response are limited; this is -------------- (A)Operant conditioning (B)Stimulus discrimination (C)Shaping (D)Chaining 19.

Who among the following is referred to as the father of experimental study of learning?

(A)E.L.Thorndike (B)John Watson (C)Wilhelm Wundt (D)Ebbinghaus Question No. 3 Petitioner Claim Option " B "

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation Candidate's claim is based on frequency distribution.

But the question asked is for probability distribution, and not frequency distribution.

Candidate's references are not applicable here. Hence, the option "D" is correct answer.

Evidence PROBABILITY MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS, MARET FISZ, 62Question No. 12 Petitioner Claim Option "A "

The question asked is to find the quotient field, which is basically a field.

But the candidate's claim is not at all a field.

References cited by the candidate is misinterpreted by the candidate herself.

Hence, the option "B" is correct answer.

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation Evidence SECOND EDITION TOPICS IN ALGEBRA, I.N. HERSTEIN, 140 Question No. 20 Petitioner Claim Option "B/C"

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation In the formula r=± bxy x byx the sign is to be taken as follows:-  If the regression coefficients are positive, r is positive.

 If the regression coefficients are negative, r is negative.

Here, both the coefficients are negative.

Hence, Option "B" is correct answer.

Evidence FUNDAMENTALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICAL, S.C. GUPTA, V.K.KAPOOR, 11.5 - 11.6

Question No. 21 Petitioner Claim Option "D"

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation On a closed interval, for any rational number, if a continuous function assumes the value 0, then it attains the value 0 throughout the interval.

The candidate's evidence does not pertain to continuous function and are irrelevant to the question asked. Hence, the option "A" is correct answer.

Evidence MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS SECOND EDITION, T.S. BHANU MURTHY, 97 Question No. 25 Petitioner Claim Option "B"

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation The candidate's evidence pertain to conformal mapping properties whereas, the question is on indirectly conformal mapping. Also the candidate has misinterpreted the properties listed in her reference. Hence, the option "D" is correct answer.

Evidence COMPLEX ANALLYSIS, LARS V.AHLFORS, 74 Question No. 38 Petitioner Claim Option "D "

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation Candidate has claimed the facts for removable singularities. The question is related to irremovable discontinuities.

The evidence produced by the candidate is not exhaustive. Hence, the option "B" is correct answer.

Evidence MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS:

SECOND EDITION, T.S. BHANU MURTHY, 93, 94 & METHODS OF REAL ANALYSIS, RICHARD R.

GOLDBERG, 113 Question No. 39 Petitioner Claim Option "A"

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation Candidate's evidence gives only the formula and not the condition for maximality. The evidence by candidate is not appropriate. Hence, the option "C" is correct answer.

Evidence FUNDAMENTALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS, S.C. GUPTA, V.K.KAPOOR, 10.40 Question No. 66 Petitioner Claim Option " D "

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation The candidate has misunderstood the concept of homomorphism and isomorphism. Implicitly, every isomorphism is a homomorphism. Hence, the option "A" is correct answer.

Evidence SECOND EDITION TOPICS IN ALGEBRA, I.N. HERSTEIN, 55

Question No.70 Petitioner Claim Option " None "

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation The evidences produced by the candidate are not relevant to the question.

Hence, the option "A" is correct answer.

Evidence SECOND EDITION TOPICS IN ALGEBRA, I.N. HERSTEIN, 36 Question No. 77 Petitioner Claim Option " B"

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation The question relates to determining the probability of non-occurrence of n events, whereas, the candidate has interpreted the probability for the nth event, which is not correct. Hence, the option "D" is correct answer.

Evidence FUNDAMENTALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS, S.C. GUPTA, V.K.KAPOOR, 3.50 - 3.51 Question No. 78 Petitioner Claim Option "A/B"

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation The correlation coefficient value always lies between -1 and 1. The candidate claim (option "B") the value exceeds 1, which is not possible. Hence, the option "A" is correct answer.

Evidence FUNDAMENTALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS, S.C.GUPTA, V.K.KAPOOR, 11.10

Question No. 86 Petitioner Claim Option "A "

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation The candidate has misinterpreted the definition of irreducibility, proper evidence relevant to the question is produced, but the interpretation by the candidate is wrong. Hence, the option "C" is correct answer.

Evidence SECOND EDITION: TOPICS IN ALGEBRA, I.N.HERSTEIN, 160 Question No. 99 Petitioner Claim Option "A"

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation Evidence produced by the candidate is for linear functionals, whereas the question is related to annihilators, properties of annihilators are not applied by the candidate at all. Hence, the option "B"

is correct answer.

Evidence EXPERT ANSWER PAPER Question No. 101 Petitioner Claim Option "B"

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation In the formula r(ax+b, cy+d) = r(x,y), (a,c?0), depending on the values of a and c, the sign '+' or '-' has to be considered accordingly. If a and c are of opposite signs, then =-1. Hence, the option "C" is correct answer.

Evidence FUNDAMENTALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS S.C.GUPTA, V.K.KAPOOR, 10.4 Question No. 102 Petitioner Claim Option " A"

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation The candidate has computed the norm of an element but not, the operator. Hence, the option "D" is correct answer.

Evidence BEGINNING FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS, KAREN SAXE, 115 Question No. 110 Petitioner Claim Option " C"

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation By the definition of uncountable set, only option "A" is uncountable and the remaining option are all countable.

Hence, the option "A" is correct answer.

Evidence MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS SECOND EDITION, T.S.BHANU MURTHY, 39, 43, 45 Question No. 121 Petitioner Claim Option " C"

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation Robert White(1959) uses the term competence motivation to describe the child's "intrinsic need to deal with the environment"

Hence option 'D' is correct.

Evidence The Psychology of Learning and Instruction - P.De CECCO, WILLIAMM R.CRAWFORD.

Question No. 135 Petitioner Claim Option " A"

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation Because of the specificity of the problems, the student responses are limited(stimulus discrimination. The teachers has made available on her desk the answers to each problem to that the students may check their answers as they go (reinforcement and immediacy is desired).

Hence option 'B' is correct.

Evidence School Learning and Instruction - HERSHEL D.

THORNBURG.

Question No. 140 Petitioner Claim Option "A"

Subject Expert Committee's views for accepting / rejecting of candidate's representation Ebbinghaus, the father of the experimental study of learning, produced evidence that indicated how quickly we forget what we've just learned (see page 213).

Hence option 'D' is correct.

Evidence Educational Psychology - Norman A.Sprinthall, Richard C.Sprinthall.

8. It is submitted that it is clearly stated in the notification that objections if any has to be submitted within the stipulated time with authenticated text books. Guides, notes, printout of unauthenticated material are not accepted.

9. It is submitted that the petitioner has not furnished any representation with authenticated proof as mentioned in the notification.

As the evaluation of the Optical Mark Reader Answer Sheets of the candidates including that of the Petitioner was done with the revised and final key answers, the claim of the Petitioner for revaluation of the answer script has no legal justification. Consequently, the Petitioner cannot have any further grievance as against the 1st Respondent Board.

10. It is respectfully submitted that even a cursory glance at the opinions given by the Subject Experts and the authoritative proof on which such opinions were formed which are filed in the type set would evidently show that the Petitioner has not demonstrably proved the key answers of the 2nd Respondent Board to be wrong. It is pertinent to cite the finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Kanpur University -Vs- Samir Gupta reported in A.I.R. 1983 SC 1230 in paras 16 & 17:

"We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be

wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard as correct". (Para 16) "If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer".(Para 17)

11. It is respectfully submitted that the Writ Petition is totally misconceived. The Petitioner chose to mislead this Hon'ble Court with legally unsustainable averments claiming that her answers are correct. It is pertinent to cite the ruling of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.A.Nos.1097 and 1099 of 2014 dated 08.09.2014. The Hon'ble Division Bench held in para 6 of the above said Order that "it is settled law that while exercising the discretionary and extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot act like an expert body, by replacing the assessment made by experts." Further the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the Order dated 12.08.2014 in W.A.No.1074 of 2014 and M.P.No.

1 of 2014 categorically held that "the appellant cannot seek as a matter of right that the answers given by him will have to be construed as correct. The appellant could not produce any contra material to the satisfaction of the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has also taken into consideration of the relevant material. The appellant was not able to demonstrate that the key answers pertaining to question Nos.31 and 86 were wrong. We do not find any merit in this appeal".

8.Relying on the counter affidavit, the learned Government Advocate further contended that the re-evaluations were done in the cases of the writ petitioners by considering their representations, and appropriate marks were awarded based on the report submitted by the Expert Committee in this regard. Thus, the grievance of the writ petitioners were redressed and in respect of selection, the petitioners have no locus standi in view of the fact that the selections are made based on the cutoff marks secured by the candidates and by following the rules and reservation. If at all, any of the representations are not considered by the authorities, the respondents are bound to consider such representations, take a decision and pass orders without any further delay.

9.With these directions, all these writ petitions stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sk To 1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI - 600 009.

2 THE CHAIRMAN, TEACHER RECRUITMENT BOARD, COLLEGE ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006.

3 THE MEMBER SECRETARY, TEACHER RECRUITMENT BOARD, COLLEGE ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006.

AND OTHERS.

4 THE DIRECTOR, TEACHER RECRUITMENT BOARD, COLLEGE ROAD, CHENNAI-6.

5 THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION , EVK SAMPATH MAALAIGAI DPI COMPOUND COLLEGE ROAD CHENNAI-600 006.

6 THE SECRETARY (STATE ELIGIBILITY TEST 2012) BHARATHIYAR UNIVERSITY COIMBATORE 7 THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION (STATE ELIGIBILITY TEST 2012) BHARATHIYAR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE ROAD, CHENNAI-6.

8 THE REGISTRAR THE PERIYAR UNIVERSITY, SALEM 636 011 9 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FORT. ST. GEORGE CHENNAI 600 009.

10 THE CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CEO OFFICE, THIRUVANNAMALAI, THIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.

11 THE DIRCTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DPI CAMPUS, COLLEGE ROAD, CHENNAI-600 006.

12 THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF KALLAR RECLAMATION BACKWARD CLASS AND MOST BACKWARD CLASS WELFARE DEPARTMENT MADURAI 13 THE DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE OFFICER, DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFFICER, VELLORE, VELLORE DISTRICT.

14 THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MOST BACKWARD & DE-NOTIFED COMMUNITIES WELFARE CHENNAI-600 005.

+1cc to the Government Pleader Sr.65021 +1cc to M/S.S.Saravanakumar, Advocate Sr.65128 +1cc to M/S.Achari & Antoni Associates, Advocate Sr.65150 +1cc to M/S.G.Sankaran, Advocate Sr.64807 +1cc to Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Advocate Sr.64475 W.P.Nos.11596, 12444, 17964, 21971, 27699 and 35075 of 2013, 2119 and 2410 of 2014, 206, 2873, 3662, 5296, 15695 and 15855 to 15857 of 2015 vsn[co] srg 29/10/2018