M.Charles Sweetly v. Teachers Recruitment Board
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND and W.M.P.No.22061 of 2017 M.Charles Sweety
...Petitioner
vs.
Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
Represented by its Member-Secretary.
... Respondents PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the examination result of the petitioner (Roll No.17 TE 20807900), quash the same in so far as it related to the declaration of the petitioner not qualified and to issue consequential directions to the respondent to revalue her Answer Book with regard to Question No.9, award one mark for the same and notify the total marks as 82 and declare her as 'Qualified' and call her for certificate verification and pass such other orders.
1/7
For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.P.Siddharth Standing Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the examination result of the petitioner (Roll No.17 TE 20807900) and to quash the same in so far as it related to the declaration of the petitioner not qualified and to issue consequential directions to the respondent to revalue her Answer Book with regard to Question No.9, award one mark for the same and notify the total marks as 82 and declare her as 'Qualified' and call her for certificate verification.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has participated in the Teachers Eligibility Test Examination conducted on 30.04.2017. Thereafter, the results was published wherein the petitioner has scored 81 marks, whereas, the pass mark was fixed as 82. The grievance of the petitioner is that she was given "C" series question paper and for Question No.9, the correct answer is "C" and she has marked "A". But, in the answer 2/7
key published by the Teachers Recruitment Board they have noted the correct answer as "C" which is not correct. If they modify the answer as "A" which is the correct one as per the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-I), the petitioner will be awarded one mark and by that her score will be 82 and she will qualified. Hence this petition.
3. During the course of the hearing, today, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has placed a copy of the order dated 31.10.2023 in W.P.No.18890 of 2017, contending that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is already decided by this Court in the said order.
4. A careful perusal of the order in W.P.No.18890 of 2017, dated 31.20.2023, it appears that this Court on consideration of the report of the Expert Committee and the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No. 34481 of 2018, dated 14.11.2022, wherein, it is held as extracted hereunder:- "2. The petitioner participated in the Teachers Eligibility Test Examination and secured 81 marks. However, the pass mark is 82. In this context, the petitioner raised a doubt regarding the right 3/7
answer for the question No.148(A-Type) paper II 2017.
3. Pursuant to the filing of the writ petition, the learned Additional Advocate General furnished the original copy of the expert committee report which reveals that the expert committee arrive at a conclusion that the right answer for the disputed question would be option "D". Whereas, the petitioner has marked option "B" in her answer sheet as her answer for the said question. Therefore, the petitioner has answered wrongly in respect of the said question and is not entitled for the one mark as per her claim.
4. Since the matter was referred to the expert committee for consideration, the expert committee has submitted a report stating that option "D" would be right answer for the disputed question and this petitioner is not entitled for the relief as such sought for.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs".
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the earlier orders passed by this Court in an identical matters, in the considered 4/7
opinion of this Court, nothing survives for further adjudication in the present Writ Petition and the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for.
5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
6. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 30.01.2024 gba Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No To Teachers Recruitment Board, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
Represented by its Member-Secretary.
5/7
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
GBA and W.M.P.No.22061 of 2017 30.01.2024 6/7
(1⁄2) 7/7