P.Vimalraj v. The Chairman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH Vimalraj.P
...Petitioner
Vs The Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board College Road, Chennai - 600 006
...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to grant the rightful one mark to the petitioner in the TET test conducted on 18.08.2013 and declare that the petitioner herein as a TET qualified candidate and grant seniority accordingly.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sandeep Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.M.Alagu Gowtham Government Advocate 1/6
ORDER
The petitioner had participated in the Teachers Eligibility Test [TET] conducted by the respondent on 18.08.2013, in which he had secured 89 marks. In the said test, he had questioned the correctness of the final answer key for Question No.107 (D-type) in Paper -2, which question and answer key read as follows:
" In which language the song "vande Matharam" was written first a. Bengali c.Urdu b. Marathi d.Sanskrit"
2. The petitioner had opted for choice '(a) Bengali'. However, the final answer key showed '(d) Sanskrit' to be the correct answer. The issue was challenged by one K.Veeramani before a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.32316 of 2013 and the writ petition came to be allowed, as against which the Teachers Recruitment Board has preferred an intracourt appeal in W.A.No.1040 of 2017 and by a judgment dated 12.10.2017, the order of the learned single Judge was upheld and a direction was issued to Teachers Recruitment Board to award one additional mark to the candidates who opted either choice (a) or choice (d) for Question No.107. The relevant portion of the order reads as 2/6
follows:
'6. In such view of the matter, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that both the answers viz., "Bengali" (Option A) and "Sanskrit" (Option D) are correct. Therefore, the respondent-Board shall award one mark to the candidates, who answered it as "Bengali" as well as to the candidates who answered it as "Sanskrit".'
3. Though Hon'ble Division Bench had directed Teachers Recruitment Board to award one mark to the candidates who had participated in the TET examination of the year 2013 but such a mark was not awarded to the petitioner, which had prompted him to file the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the direction of Hon'ble Division Bench, the petitioner is entitled for award of one additional mark.
5. The learned Government Advocate would submit that though the order of the Division Bench was passed way back in the year 2017, the petitioner had belatedly approached this Court. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 3/6
6. Admittedly, the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in K.Veeramani's case has become final and in view of the directions given therein, all the candidates who opted either Choice (a) or Choice (d) to Question No.107 would be entitled for one additional mark. There was no reason for the Board to expect all the candidates to approach them seeking for such additional mark. As a matter of fact, the direction of the Bench was to the Board to award one additional mark for the candidates who had participated and attempted Question No.107 in the Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by them on 18.08.2013. If that be so, the delay and laches is attributable to the Board only and not to the petitioner. This apart, the failure to award one mark to the petitioner is also in violation of the directions of Hon'ble Division Bench.
7. In view of the laches on the part of the Teachers Recruitment Board, the petitioner was deprived from participating in 2017 recruitment, apart from his seniority being affected. Of course, the decision of the Division Bench, which later culminated into awarding of one mark, was pending at that point of time.
4/6
8. Thus, I am of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to one additional mark and if that one mark is awarded, the petitioner's total score would be 90 marks and accordingly, he would have been declared as a successful candidate in the TET in the year 2013 itself.
9. In the light of the above observations and findings, this writ petition is allowed and there shall be a direction to the respondent Board to pass appropriate orders by awarding one additional mark for the petitioner in the test conducted on 18.01.2013 and declare the petitioner as having qualified in the 2013 test itself and revision of his seniority. Such order shall be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
15.11.2023 Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order gpa Note: Issue order copy on 17.11.2023.
To The Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board College Road, Chennai - 600 006 5/6
M.S.RAMESH,J.
gpa 15.11.2023 6/6