Madras High Court
R.Selvan vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 8 November, 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.11.2013
CORAM..
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
Writ Petition (MD)No.18018 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
R.Selvan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Government of Tamilnadu,
rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Department of School Education,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of School Education,
D.P.I.Campus,
College Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 006.
3.The Teachers' Recruitment Board,
Rep.by its Member Secretary,
4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai,
College Road, Chennai-600 006.
... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the impugned final key answer published by the 3rd respondent for
the written examination conducted on 21.07.2013 for Direct Recruitment of Post
Graduate Assistants/Physical Education Directors - Grade I for Government Higher
Secondary Schools 2012-2013 in respect of Question Nos.19, 66, 70, 92, 102, 123,
125, 132, 145 and 147 in Booklet Series B is concerned, quashing the same and
directing the 3rd respondent to revise the final key answers and award marks to
the petitioner and award weightage marks to the petitioner for employment
seniority and teaching experience and call for the petitioner for certificate
verification.
!For Petitioner .. Mr.R.Subramanian
^For Respondents .. Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan,
Spl.Govt.Pleader.
:ORDER
The petitioner had appeared in the written competitive examination for direct recruitment to the Post-Graduate Assistant, in the subject of History, for the year 2012-2013. He scored 103 marks. The cut-off mark prescribed by the Board for short-listing the candidates is 111. Now, the petitioner, in this petition, challenges the correctness of the key answers set for the Question Nos.19, 66, 70, 92, 102, 123, 125, 132, 145 and 147 in Booklet Series 'B'.
2.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. On the directions of this Court, three Subject Experts in History Subject, by name (1)Dr.P.Manohar, Associate Professor, Government Arts College, Nandhanam, Chennai-35;
(2)Dr.M.Lakshmanan, Associate Professor, Presidency College, Chennai-5; and (3)Dr.I.Udhayasankar, Assistant Professor, Government Arts College for Men, Nandanam, Chennai-35, are present before this Court.
3.Question No.19 reads as follows:
"19.In which year the Kellog-Briand pact was signed?
(a)1928 (B)1923 (C)1930 (D)1938"
At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Question No.19 is out of syllabus and therefore the same should be deleted from valuation. The learned counsel has referred to Unit-X of the Syllabus prescribed by the Teachers Recruitment Board, which reads as follows:
"Unit-X. Unification of Italy and Germany - Russian revolution - first World War and Peace Treaties - League of Nations, Rise of Dictatorships - Hitler, Mussolini and Kamal Paksha - II World War - U.N.O. and Cold War."
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the question relates to the subsequent period than the period mentioned in Unit-X. In my considered opinion, a candidate, who is a post-graduate and to be selected for teaching higher secondary students, should know the answer to the Question No.19. The syllabus mentioned herein cannot be equated to the syllabus prescribed for students who appear in qualifying examination. This is a competitive examination where knowledge is tested. Therefore, it cannot be said that this question is out of syllabus. Therefore this submission is rejected.
4.Nextly, key answer to Question No.66 is challenged. The question reads as follows:
"66.Which is not the work of Aryabhatta?
(A) Aryabhattiyam (B) Romak Siddhanta (C) Surya Siddhanta (D) Charak Samhita"
According to the petitioner, the key answer set by the Board is not correct. According to the Board, the key answer is "D" i.e. 'Charak Samhita'. But, according to the petitioner, both 'B" and "D" options are correct answers. The Experts, who are present in the Court, would submit that the work 'Romak Siddhanta' is not known to historians. In order to substantiate this contention, the Experts have referred to the book titled "A Political and Cultural History of India", wherein it is also stated so.
5.If the Experts opinion on this aspect is accepted, one is not sure as to whether 'Romak Siddhanta' was authored by Aryabhatta or not. When this answer is dubious, the benefit should be given to the candidates. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the candidates who have opted either option "B" or option "D" should be awarded marks. I hold that unless it is said that 'Romak Siddhanta' was the work of Aryabhatta, a candidate who has answered 'B' option, as the correct answer, cannot be denied mark. In view of the above, I direct the respondent Board to revalue all the papers of the candidates, by awarding marks to the candidates who answered option "B" or option "D" for question No.66 in 'B' series and also for the candidates who have similarly answered this question in other series also.
6.Next comes Question No.70, which reads as follows:
"70.Agriculture was the main occupation of Rigvedic people. The ploughed land was called as ..........
(A)Kshetra (B)Krishi (C)Sira (D)Phala."
According to the Board, option "A" 'Kshetra' is the correct answer. According to the petitioner, "Urvara" is the correct answer, which is not given as any of the options. Therefore, according to the petitioner, this question is liable to be deleted. The Experts, who are present in the Court, would submit that "Urvara" and "Kshetra" refer to the same group of Rigvedic people. The Experts have relied on a book titled "An Advanced History of India" - 2nd Edition, by R.C.Majumdar, H.C.Raychaudhuri and Kalikinkar Datta, wherein, at Page No.33, it is stated as follows:
".... Agriculture was the principal occupation of the village folk. The importance of the art of tilling is clearly brought out by the name Krishti or Charshani (agriculturist) which is applied to people in general, and in particular to the five principal tribes into which the early Vedic community was divided. Cultivated fields were known as Urvara or Kshetra. They were often watered by irrigation canals..."
Similarly, Experts have produced few more books wherein also it is stated so. In view of the same, I hold that option "A" is the right answer and accordingly I reject the challenge made to this question.
7.Next comes challenge to Question No.92, which reads as follows:
"92.The first Indian linguistic state of Andhra Pradesh was created on:
(A) December 19, 1953 (B) December 15, 1953 (C) December 25, 1953 (D) December 31, 1953"
The Board has deleted this question from valuation, as none of the options is the correct answer. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that option 'A" is the correct answer. The Experts, who are present in the Court, would say that none of the options is the correct answer. The Official Website of Andhra Pradesh State Government reads as follows:
"Andhra State was a state in India created on October 1, 1953 from the Telugu-speaking northern districts of Madras State".
In view of the same, the challenge is rejected and I hold that the deletion of Question No.92 from valuation is correct.
8.Next comes Question Nos.102, 123, 125, 132 and 145. Challenge to these questions have already been decided by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.(MD)No.17155 of 2013 etc. batch, decided on 06.11.2013, wherein this Court rejected the challenge made to these questions, except Question No.145. For Question No.145, in W.P.(MD)No.17971/2013, this Court has directed the Board to award marks only for the candidates who have answered option 'B' as the correct answer. The Board has been directed not to award marks for those who have answered option 'C'. The said decision governs the challenge made in this writ petition in respect of question Nos.102. 123, 125, 132 and 145 also.
9.Last challenge is to Question No.147, which reads as follows:
"147.Name the Sultanate ruler who had established Delhi Sultan rule in Madurai.
(A) Ghiyasuddin Tuglag (B) Firoz Tuglag (C) Mohammed-Bin-Tuglaq(D) JalaluddinSha"
According to the Board, option 'C' is the correct answer. According to the petitioner, option 'D' is the correct answer. The Experts, who are present in the court, would submit that at that time, only one Sultan was there and he was Mohammed-Bin-Tuglaq and Jalaluddin Shah was only a Governor and not a Sultan. This view is supported by many leading books which are shown to me by the Experts. In the book titled "A political and Cultural History of India" - Volume-II, Chapter III - The Mabar and Bahmani Sultanates (1335-1527) Section-I THE SULTANATE OF MABAR (1335-78), it is stated as follows:
"Jalall-ud-din Ahsan Shah (1335-40). Subsequent to the annexation of Mabar by Muhammad bin Tughlak in 1327 and the appointment of Sayyid Jalal-ud-din Ahsan as its Governor, the Sultan's control over the province is clear from his coins, dated 1330, 1333 and 1334. ..."
Therefore, this challenge is rejected.
10.With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Connected M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 are closed.
gb To:
1.The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Director of School Education, D.P.I.Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Member Secretary, Teachers' Recruitment Board, 4th Floor,E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai-600 006.