P.Vimala v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.07.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH W.P.(MD)No.17886 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.13689 of 2025 P.Vimala ... Petitioner -vsThe Government of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 3rd Floor, Putatchi Thalaivar Dr.MGR Centenary Building, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records of the Respondent pertaining to the NA.KA.No. 5189/C1/E1/2025 dated 11.06.2025 by the respondent for Direct Recruitment for the post of Secondary Grade Teachers - 2024 for Notification No. 01/2024 dated 09.02.2025 and quash the same as illegal, consequently directing the respondent to provide 6 Additional Marks to the petitioner, answer correctly in Question Number 44, 51, 81, 127, 154 and 155 examination conducted on 21.07.2024 in Roll No. 114042202, Registration No. SGT006171 for Direct Recruitment for the post of 1/6

Secondary Grade Teachers - 2024 based on petitioner's representation dated 06.05.2025 and appoint the petitioner as a Secondary Grade Teacher under MBC/DNC Dept - PMK (W) Category for the Notification No.01/2024 dated 09.02.2025.

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondent : Mr.T.Amjad Khan Government Advocate

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent in NA.KA.No.5189/C1/E1/2025 dated 11.06.2025 for Direct Recruitment for the post of 'Secondary Grade Teachers - 2024' for Notification No. 01/2024 dated 09.02.2025 and also to direct the respondent to provide 6 Additional Marks to the petitioner in Question Numbers 44, 51, 81, 127, 154 and 155 in the examination conducted on 21.07.2024 in Roll No. 114042202, Registration No. SGT006171 for Direct Recruitment to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers - 2024, based on the petitioner's representation dated 06.05.2025 and appoint the petitioner as a Secondary Grade Teacher under MBC/DNC Dept - PMK (W) Category for the Notification No.01/2024 dated 09.02.2025.

2/6

2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. The petitioner has completed Diploma in Teacher Education in the year 2011 in Tamil Medium. She also completed her school education in tamil medium. Furthermore, she completed TET examination in the year 2022. The petitioner applied for the post of Secondary Grade Teachers for the year 2023-24, pursuant to the notification dated 09.02.2024. She appeared for examination and the key answers for the same have been released and the Teachers Recruitment Board gave time to make objections for the said key answers. The petitioner also made an objection for some key answers for certain questions on 12.04.2025. The petitioner got 91 marks out of 150. However, her name has not been included in the objection list released by TRB. The petitioner sent a query with regard to the same on 06.05.2025. However, the same has been replied through order dated 11.06.2025, which is impugned in this writ petition.

4. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the 3/6

case of Ran Vijay Singh & Others vs. State of UP & Ors., reported in 2018

(0) AIR (SC) 52, and the relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- "30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions.

They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

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 4/6

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."

5. Thus, following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this writ petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

03.07.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No sm TO:-

1. The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 3rd Floor, Putatchi Thalaivar Dr.MGR Centenary Building, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai - 600 006.

5/6

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

sm Order made in W.P.(MD)No.17886 of 2025 Dated:

03.07.2025 6/6