K. Ganesan, v. The State Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI and WMP.Nos.55026 and 55027 of 2025 K.Ganesan Petitioner Vs
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director Of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3.Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep by its Chairman, 4th Floor, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 606 006.
... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of declaration to declare that the petitioner is eligible for additional marks in the competitive examination conducted by the 3rd 1/10
Respondent on 12.10.2025 and consequentially eligible to be appointed as Post Graduate Assistant- Botany pursuant to the recruitment notification No.2/2025 dated 10.07.2025.
For Petitioner : Ms.N.Kavitha Rameshwar For Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.C.Kathiravan (TRB) Mrs.Mythreye Chandru (R1 and R2) Special Government Pleader
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the third respondent. 2.The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the notification issued by the 3rd respondent to the post of Post Graduate Assistant in Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service for the year 2025, the petitioner has applied for the post of PG Assistant (Botany) and appeared for written examination conducted on 12.10.2025. The petitioner was not satisfied with the tentative key answers in respect of Question Nos.43, 45, 52, 84, 101, 145, 160,161 & 167 and in the notification itself, the 3 rd respondent has stated that any objections with regard to the Tentative answer key shall be raised through Online mode within 2/10
the prescribed time. Accordingly, the petitioner raised objections with supporting documents through online mode. However, the 3rd respondent published the final key answers and published the examination result on 27.11.2025, by granting marks for two questions viz., 45 and 67 out of nine questions, wherein the petitioner has secured 79 marks. However, the petitioner has not secured the cut off mark under their category. If the petitioner was awarded marks for the above said questions, he would have come within the zone of consideration and non awarding of marks, deprives his right to be considered for appointment to the post of PG Assistant. After publication of the final answer key, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the 3rd respondent on 02.12.
2025, requesting them to award 7 marks for the aforesaid questions, by enclosing the relevant supporting text book materials for the aforesaid questions. As the same was not considered, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for the relief stated supra. 3.
can award mark to the such questions to enable the petitioners to be selected to the above post. In support of her contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rishal and Others vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others reported in (2018) 8 SCC
81. Further, she has placed heavy reliance on the approved text books by the State Government to substantiate that the answers given in the final key list is wrong, with respect to the aforesaid 7 questions and though the petitioner has answered the aforesaid questions correctly, she was not awarded the marks for the same. She therefore requests for a direction to the Government to take steps for cancellation of those text books.
4.Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted that the notification itself provided for making objections with regard to the Tentative answer published by the 3rd respondent, through Online mode within the prescribed time. After receipt of the objections of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has appointed Experts to evaluate the key answer given by the 3rd respondent as well as the answers attended by the petitioner. However, the experts opined that the key answer published by the 3rd respondent is correct.
5.On a perusal of the expert opinion, this Court is satisfied that the 4/10
experts have opined that the answer key published by the 3rd respondent is perfectly in order.
6.The very same issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta and others vs. The State of Rajasthan and others in Civil Appeal Nos.3649 and 3650 of 2020, wherein it has been categorically held that "it is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. The Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations." 7.For better appreciation, Paragraph No.11 of the judgment (supra) reads as follows:
"11. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re- evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates (Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. MANU/SC/00401/2010 : (2010) 6 SCC 759) Courts have to show deference and consideration to the 5/10
recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations [See- Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors. MANU/SC/0530/2010 : (2010) 8 SCC 372). Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to reevaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. MANU/SC/1578/2017 : (2018) 2 SCC 357 held that court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the academic matters are best left to academics. This Court in the said judgment further held as follows:
"31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the 6/10
candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years.
Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination - whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers." 8.
published by the 3rd respondent is correct. Therefore, this Court cannot substitute the reasons for deferring the answers arrived at by experts. Hence, the prayer sought for in the present Writ Petition cannot be granted. 9.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for a direction to the Government to take steps for cancellation of those text books, which publish wrong answers, as it affects the students who give wrong answers going by the said text books, which have been authorised by the Government, however, it is not within the realm of this Court to give any such direction to the Government. Suffice to grant liberty to the petitioner to make separate representation to the concerned respondents to cancel the authorisation granted for the publication of the said text books and it is for the respondents to scrutinize the said representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.01.2026 (2/2) Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order arr 8/10
To
1. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Director Of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3.Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep by its Chairman, 4th Floor, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 606 006.
9/10
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
arr 05.01.2026 10/10
11/10