R.Saveeth v. The Chairman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN R.Saveetha
...Petitioner
-Vs -
1. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 6.
2. The Principal Secretary to Government, High Education Department, St. George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to pass order on the representation dated 13.07.2022 by adding 6 marks for the question Nos.32 & 56 in Part A and question Nos.13 & 20 in Part B in the written examination and revise the rank list by re-evaluating th petitioner's marks from 100 to 106 in the selection of Polytechnic Lecturer in Computer Science Engineering.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Balasundar For Respondents For R1 : Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.C.Kathiravan For R2 : Mr.U.Baranidharan Additional Government Pleader.
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for direction to direct the first respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 13.07.2022 seeking adding 6 marks for the question Nos.32 & 56 in Part A and question No.13 & 20 in Part B in the written examination and revise the rank list by re-evaluating th petitioner's marks from 100 to 106 in the selection of Polytechnic Lecturer in Computer Science Engineering. 2.
The petitioner had written the Polytechnic Lecturer in Computer Science department conducted by first respondent in the moth of December 2021. There are grievances in the tentative answer key released by the first respondent on 07.01.2022. The petitioner submitted objection through the objection tracker of first respondent. On 08.03.2022, final answer key released by the first respondent for question
Nos.31,32,38,56 in Part A and question No.20 in Part B. However, the objection was not considered by the first respondent and mechanically rejected the objection raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner submitted detailed representation as per the standard text book prescribed by Anna University to evaluate the final answer key by awarding marks for the questions. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner approached this Court in the present writ petition. 3.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material placed before this Court. 4.
The first respondent filed counter stating that on receipt of the 17037 objections submitted from the candidates and the same were taken for scrutiny by subject experts. As far as the petitioner is concerned, she raised objection for 10 questions in which two questions were rectified and rightly changed in the final answer key. Insofar as other objections are rejected. Once again, the petitioner sought for revaluation as per the objection raised by her. The board has taken utmost effort to carry out the procedure as to the process releasing
tentative answer key after the careful examination made by the expert committee and affording opportunity to the petitioner before taking the final decision.
5.
The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of first respondent submitted that the expert committee had examined all the objections in respect of the key answers and published final keys. Therefore, when the exercise has been duly carried out by the expert body, there was no occasion for this Court to enter into the domain of experts and re-appreciate the correctness or otherwise and the questions and the key answers. Therefore, the objections were thoroughly examined by the Subject Expert Committee and the opinion of the subject expert committee is final.
6.
The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1097 and 1099 of 2014 dated 08.09.2014 held as follows: ''Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.1099 of 2014 that one question has not been covered by the earlier orders passed by the learned single judge, we are not inclined to
accept the same, for the reason that the expert body, on an analysis, found that the answer given by the appellant in W.A.No.1099 of 2014 was not a correct one. 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.'' 7.
It is pertinent to mention the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kanpur University vs Samir Gupta reported in AIR 1983 SC 1230 in Para.16 and 17 as follows: "'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. If this were a case or doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer" 8.
Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner was rightly considered by the expert committee and corrected the final key answers.
The other objectionable questions were rejected by the expert committee. In view of the above, the representation submitted by the petitioner cannot be considered and this writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
9.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
08.01.2024 Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order rts
To
1. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 6.
2. The Principal Secretary to Government, High Education Department, St. George Fort, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, rts 08.01.2024