Kalpana.R v. The Chairman
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.1117 and 1118 of 2021 R.Kalpana ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Chairman, Teachers Requirement Board, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
2.The Director of School Education, Directorate of School Education, College Road, Nungampakkam, Chennai-600 006.
... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in pursuant to the impugned Revised Provisional Selection List dated 28.12.2020 for the Direct Recruitment of Computer Instructors Grade-1 (Post Graduate Cadre) based on the online Computerized Examination issued by the first respondent based on the normalization of marks and quash the same as illegal and further direct the first respondent to award 2 marks for the vague optional answers for 1/6
question Nos.72 and 91 of her question paper in Roll No.4501331 during online examination.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy For R-1 : Mr.T.Amjad Khan, Standing Counsel For R-2 : Mr.S.Shaji Bino, Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Revised Provisional Selection List dated 28.12.2020 and consequently to direct the first respondent to award two marks to the petitioner for the vague optional answers for question Nos.72 and 91.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for award of two marks in her favour for question Nos.72 and 91. According to the petitioner, the key answers for question Nos.72 and 91 published by the respondents are incorrect. According to the petitioner, the answers given by her in the examination for question Nos.72 and 91 are correct and if the marks are awarded accordingly, the petitioner claims that she would have got selected and her name would have been included in the Provisional Selection List. Since her name has not been included in the Provisional Selection List, she has filed this writ petition. 2/6
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the first respondent denying the contentions of the petitioner and they have categorically stated that the key answers given by them for the subject questions are correct. They have contended that since the petitioner has not been able to secure the cut-off marks in the BC category, her name has not been included in the impugned Provisional Selection List.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent would also submit that the selection process has already come to an end and appointment orders have already been issued. The said submission is also recorded.
5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent has also placed on record an order dated 19.09.2025 passed by me in W.P.(MD).No. 2015 of 2022 under identical circumstances. In the said order, the writ petition was dismissed after referring to the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by following decisions in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2018 0 AIR (SC) 52 as well as the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 0 AIR (SC) 2861 in the case of U.P.P.S.C., through its Chairman and another Vs. Rahul Singh and another. This Court held that the question of awarding marks 3/6
based on the allegations that the key answers are incorrect by the Court does not arise, since the Court is not an expert body to certify whether the answers given by the candidates are correct or not that too when there is no conclusive evidence placed on record by the petitioner to conclusively establish that the key answers given by the respondents are incorrect. In the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been made clear that the onus to demonstrate incorrectness of key answers lies on the candidates and the Constitutional Court must exercise great restraint in such matters. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the entire selection process has also come to an end and appointment orders have already been issued and therefore, at this stage, that too when the petitioner has not been able to conclusively establish before this Court that the key answers given by the respondents are incorrect, the prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be entertained.
7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
14.10.2025 NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no TSG 4/6
To The Director of School Education, Directorate of School Education, College Road, Nungampakkam, Chennai-600 006.
5/6
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
TSG 14.10.2025 6/6