Madras High Court
K.P.Yuvaraja vs The Secretary on 2 November, 2018
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :02.11.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No. 25099 of 2017
W.M.P.No.26535 & 26536 of 2017
K.P.Yuvaraja ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Secretary
The State of Tamilnadu,
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
EVK Sampath Maligai,
DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Expert Committee,
(Chemistry) Teachers Recruitment Board,
EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound College Road,
Chennai-600 006.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of Declaration declaring the final key answer
provided for the question paper in Chemistry CDE 2017 Booklet series C
pertaining to Question Nos.37 54 55 89 94 107 109 & 114 provided by
the 2nd respondent as incorrect and consequently to direct the 2nd
respondent to award marks for the above said questions and to declare the
petitioner bearing Roll No.17PG11050073 to have passed in written
examination and allow him to participate in the certificate verification within
the period that may be stipulated by this Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thenrajan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a declaration declaring the final key answer provided for the question paper in Chemistry CDE 2017 Booklet series C pertaining to Question Nos.37 54 55 89 94 107 109 & 114 provided by the 2nd respondent as incorrect and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to award marks for the above said questions and to declare the petitioner bearing Roll No.17PG11050073 to have passed in written examination and allow him to participate in the certificate verification
2. The similar issue in respect of the same recruitment had been considered by this Court and a detailed order has been passed in WP.No.22699 of 2017 dated 07.09.2018 and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
5.The Expert Committee constituted had gone into the allegations raised by the writ petitioners and furnished their reports in detail, including the correct answers and the questions in this regard. The copy of the report is enclosed in the typed set of papers filed by the respondents and the same contains the reference notes and all other particulars, stating that the Expert http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Committee has elaborately considered all the possible answers and submitted their report in respect of the issues raised by the petitioners in this regard.
6.Relying on the said report, the learned Government Advocate contended that based on the report submitted by the Expert Committee, a revised evaluations were done in respect of all these writ petitioners and wherever applicable, additional marks were awarded and accordingly, the final list of selection was published. The representations submitted by the writ petitioners were considered based on the report of the Expert Committee, the re-evaluations were done by the authorities competent and the eligible candidates were awarded with marks and thereafter, the final selection list was prepared and published. Subsequently, based on the final selection list, appointments were also provided to all the selected candidates and they have joined in service.
7.In paragraph 6 onwards in the counter affidavit, the details of the objectionable and defective questions and the answers arrived were elaborately deal with by the respondents, which all are extracted hereunder:
“5. It is respectfully submitted that the 1st Respondent Board published the tentative key answers for all subjects on the Board’s Website on 19.07.2017 and advised the candidates to submit the representations regarding objections, if any, to the tentative key answers with relevant proof of authority on or before 23.07.2017.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
6. It is respectfully submitted that a committee of Subject Experts with academic excellence examined the representations received from the candidates, discussed the objections on the basis of authoritative texts and framed final key answers. After thorough scrutiny, final and revised key answers were prepared by the Subject Experts and the Optical Mark Reader Answers sheets of all the candidates were evaluated on the basis of the final and revised key answers.
Subsequently the 1st Respondent Board published the provisional result of the written competitive examination on 11.08.2017.
7. It is submitted that the petitioner avers that Final key answers published by the Teachers Recruitment Board is not correct, in respect of Question Nos., Book-let Series as detailed below:-
Questio Question No. Key answer of the Tentative Key Final n No. of of “D” Series Petitioner key “A” Series 67 3 B D D 100 12 A B B 36 20 B/C B B 69 21 D A A 26 25 B D D 3 38 B B B 91 39 A C C 84 66 B A A 53 70 None A A 10 77 B D D 46 78 A/B A A 16 86 A C C 39 99 A B B 47 101 B C C http://www.judis.nic.in 5 19 102 A D D 30 110 C A A 140 121 C D D 136 135 A B B 139 140 A D D There is no change in the tentative keys as well as in the final key and for the Questions 3, 12, 20, 21, 25, 38, 39, 66, 70, 77, 78, 86, 99, 101, 102, 110, 121, 135 and 140 in series “D” the subject experts have furnished their opinion as follows:-
Sl Ques Questions . tion N Nos o
1. 3
2. 12
3. 20 http://www.judis.nic.in 6
4. 21
5. 25
6. 38
7. 39 http://www.judis.nic.in 7
8. 66
9. 70 10 77 .
11 78 .
http://www.judis.nic.in 8 12 86 .
13 99 .
14 101 .
15 102 .
http://www.judis.nic.in 9 16 110 .
17 121 --------used the term ‘competence motivation’ to describe the . child’s intrinsic need to deal with the environment.
(A)McClelland (B)Carl Rogers (C)Abraham Maslow (D)Robert White 18 135 In a Mathematics activity session, because of the specificity . of the problems, the student response are limited; this is
--------------
(A)Operant conditioning (B)Stimulus discrimination (C)Shaping (D)Chaining 19 140 Who among the following is referred to as the father of . experimental study of learning?
(A)E.L.Thorndike (B)John Watson (C)Wilhelm Wundt (D)Ebbinghaus Question No. 3 Petitioner Claim Option “ B ” Subject Expert Committee’s views Candidate’s claim is based on for accepting / rejecting of frequency distribution. But the http://www.judis.nic.in 10 candidate’s representation question asked is for probability distribution, and not frequency distribution. Candidate’s references are not applicable here. Hence, the option “D” is correct answer.
Evidence PROBABILITY
MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS,
MARET FISZ, 62-65
Question No. 12
Petitioner Claim Option “A ”
Subject Expert Committee’s views The question asked is to find the
for accepting / rejecting of quotient field, which is basically
candidate’s representation a field. But the candidate’s claim
is not at all a field. References
cited by the candidate is
misinterpreted by the candidate herself. Hence, the option “B” is correct answer.
Evidence SECOND EDITION TOPICS IN ALGEBRA, I.N. HERSTEIN, 140 Question No. 20 Petitioner Claim Option “B/C” Subject Expert Committee’s views In the formula r=± bxy x byx for accepting / rejecting of candidate’s representation the sign is to be taken as follows:-
• If the regression coefficients are positive, r is positive.
• If the regression coefficients are negative, http://www.judis.nic.in 11 r is negative.
Here, both the coefficients are negative.
Hence, Option “B” is correct answer.
Evidence FUNDAMENTALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICAL, S.C. GUPTA, V.K.KAPOOR, 11.5 – 11.6 Question No. 21 Petitioner Claim Option “D” Subject Expert Committee’s views On a closed interval, for any for accepting / rejecting of rational number, if a continuous candidate’s representation function assumes the value 0, then it attains the value 0 throughout the interval.
The candidate’s evidence does not pertain to continuous function and are irrelevant to the question asked. Hence, the option “A” is correct answer.
Evidence MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS SECOND EDITION, T.S. BHANU MURTHY, 97 Question No. 25 Petitioner Claim Option “B” Subject Expert Committee’s views for The candidate’s evidence accepting / rejecting of candidate’s pertain to conformal mapping representation properties whereas, the question is on indirectly conformal mapping. Also the candidate has misinterpreted http://www.judis.nic.in 12 the properties listed in her reference. Hence, the option “D” is correct answer.
Evidence COMPLEX ANALLYSIS, LARS V.AHLFORS, 74 Question No. 38 Petitioner Claim Option “D ” Subject Expert Committee’s views Candidate has claimed the facts for accepting / rejecting of for removable singularities. The candidate’s representation question is related to irremovable discontinuities.
The evidence produced by the candidate is not exhaustive.
Hence, the option “B” is correct answer.
Evidence MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS:
SECOND EDITION, T.S. BHANU MURTHY, 93, 94 & METHODS OF REAL ANALYSIS, RICHARD R. GOLDBERG, 113 Question No. 39 Petitioner Claim Option “A” Subject Expert Committee’s views Candidate’s evidence gives only for accepting / rejecting of the formula and not the candidate’s representation condition for maximality. The evidence by candidate is not appropriate. Hence, the option “C” is correct answer.
Evidence FUNDAMENTALS OF
MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS,
S.C. GUPTA, V.K.KAPOOR,
10.40
http://www.judis.nic.in
13
Question No. 66
Petitioner Claim Option “ D ”
Subject Expert Committee’s views The candidate has
for accepting / rejecting of misunderstood the concept of
candidate’s representation homomorphism and
isomorphism. Implicitly, every isomorphism is a homomorphism. Hence, the option “A” is correct answer. Evidence SECOND EDITION TOPICS IN ALGEBRA, I.N. HERSTEIN, 55 Question No.70 Petitioner Claim Option “ None ” Subject Expert Committee’s views The evidences produced by the for accepting / rejecting of candidate are not relevant to the candidate’s representation question. Hence, the option “A” is correct answer.
Evidence SECOND EDITION TOPICS IN ALGEBRA, I.N. HERSTEIN, 36 Question No. 77 Petitioner Claim Option “ B” Subject Expert Committee’s views for The question relates to accepting / rejecting of candidate’s determining the probability of representation non-occurrence of n events, whereas, the candidate has interpreted the probability for the nth event, which is not correct. Hence, the option “D” is correct answer.
Evidence FUNDAMENTALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS, S.C. GUPTA, V.K.KAPOOR, 3.50 – 3.51 http://www.judis.nic.in 14 Question No. 78 Petitioner Claim Option “A/B” Subject Expert Committee’s views The correlation coefficient value for accepting / rejecting of always lies between -1 and 1. candidate’s representation The candidate claim (option “B”) the value exceeds 1, which is not possible. Hence, the option “A” is correct answer.
Evidence FUNDAMENTALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS, S.C.GUPTA, V.K.KAPOOR, 11.10 Question No. 86 Petitioner Claim Option “A ” Subject Expert Committee’s views The candidate has for accepting / rejecting of misinterpreted the definition of candidate’s representation irreducibility, proper evidence relevant to the question is produced, but the interpretation by the candidate is wrong.
Hence, the option “C” is correct answer.
Evidence SECOND EDITION: TOPICS IN ALGEBRA, I.N.HERSTEIN, 160 Question No. 99 Petitioner Claim Option “A” Subject Expert Committee’s views for Evidence produced by the accepting / rejecting of candidate’s candidate is for linear representation functionals, whereas the question is related to annihilators, properties of annihilators are not applied by the candidate at all. Hence, the option “B” is correct answer.
http://www.judis.nic.in 15 Evidence EXPERT ANSWER PAPER Question No. 101 Petitioner Claim Option “B” Subject Expert Committee’s views In the formula r(ax+b, cy+d) = for accepting / rejecting of candidate’s representation r(x,y), (a,c?0), depending on the values of a and c, the sign ‘+’ or ‘–‘ has to be considered accordingly. If a and c are of opposite signs, then =-1. Hence, the option “C” is correct answer.
Evidence FUNDAMENTALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS S.C.GUPTA, V.K.KAPOOR, 10.4 Question No. 102 Petitioner Claim Option “ A” Subject Expert Committee’s views for The candidate has computed the accepting / rejecting of candidate’s norm of an element but not, the representation operator. Hence, the option “D” is correct answer.
Evidence BEGINNING FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS, KAREN SAXE, 115 Question No. 110 Petitioner Claim Option “ C” Subject Expert Committee’s views for By the definition of uncountable accepting / rejecting of candidate’s set, only option “A” is representation uncountable and the remaining option are all countable.
http://www.judis.nic.in 16 Hence, the option “A” is correct answer.
Evidence MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS SECOND EDITION, T.S.BHANU MURTHY, 39, 43, 45 Question No. 121 Petitioner Claim Option “ C” Subject Expert Committee’s views for Robert White(1959) uses the accepting / rejecting of candidate’s term competence motivation to representation describe the child’s “intrinsic need to deal with the environment” Hence option ‘D’ is correct.
Evidence The Psychology of Learning and Instruction – P.De CECCO, WILLIAMM R.CRAWFORD.Question No. 135
Petitioner Claim Option “ A” Subject Expert Committee’s views Because of the specificity of the for accepting / rejecting of problems, the student candidate’s representation responses are limited(stimulus discrimination. The teachers has made available on her desk the answers to each problem to that the students may check their answers as they go(reinforcement and immediacy is desired).
Hence option ‘B’ is correct.
Evidence School Learning and Instruction
- HERSHEL D. THORNBURG.Question No. 140
http://www.judis.nic.in 17 Petitioner Claim Option “A” Subject Expert Committee’s views Ebbinghaus, the father of the for accepting / rejecting of experimental study of learning, candidate’s representation produced evidence that indicated how quickly we forget what we’ve just learned (see page 213).
Hence option ‘D’ is correct.
Evidence Educational Psychology – Norman A.Sprinthall, Richard C.Sprinthall.
8. It is submitted that it is clearly stated in the notification that objections if any has to be submitted within the stipulated time with authenticated text books. Guides, notes, printout of unauthenticated material are not accepted.
9. It is submitted that the petitioner has not furnished any representation with authenticated proof as mentioned in the notification. As the evaluation of the Optical Mark Reader Answer Sheets of the candidates including that of the Petitioner was done with the revised and final key answers, the claim of the Petitioner for revaluation of the answer script has no legal justification. Consequently, the Petitioner cannot have any further grievance as against the 1st Respondent Board.
10. It is respectfully submitted that even a cursory glance at the opinions given by the Subject Experts and the authoritative proof on which such opinions were formed which are filed in the type set would evidently show that the Petitioner has not demonstrably proved the key answers of the 2nd Respondent Board to be wrong. It is pertinent to cite the http://www.judis.nic.in 18 finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Kanpur University – Vs- Samir Gupta reported in A.I.R. 1983 SC 1230 in paras 16 & 17:
“We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard as correct”. (Para 16) “If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer”.(Para 17)
11. It is respectfully submitted that the Writ Petition is totally misconceived. The Petitioner chose to mislead this Hon’ble Court with legally unsustainable averments claiming that her answers are correct. It is pertinent to cite the ruling of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.A.Nos.1097 and 1099 of 2014 dated 08.09.2014. The Hon’ble Division Bench held in para 6 of the above said Order that “it is settled law that while exercising the discretionary and extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot act like an expert body, by replacing the assessment made by experts.” Further the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the Order dated 12.08.2014 in W.A.No.1074 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 categorically held that “the appellant cannot seek as a matter of right that the answers given by him will have to be construed as correct. The appellant could not http://www.judis.nic.in 19 produce any contra material to the satisfaction of the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has also taken into consideration of the relevant material. The appellant was not able to demonstrate that the key answers pertaining to question Nos.31 and 86 were wrong. We do not find any merit in this appeal”.
8.Relying on the counter affidavit, the learned Government Advocate further contended that the re-evaluations were done in the cases of the writ petitioners by considering their representations, and appropriate marks were awarded based on the report submitted by the Expert Committee in this regard.
Thus, the grievance of the writ petitioners were redressed and in respect of selection, the petitioners have no locus standi in view of the fact that the selections are made based on the cut-off marks secured by the candidates and by following the rules and reservation. If at all, any of the representations are not considered by the authorities, the respondents are bound to consider such representations, take a decision and pass orders without any further delay.
9.With these directions, all these writ petitions stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
3. This apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh reported in 2018 (7) SCC 254 settled the legal position in respect of the interference with the http://www.judis.nic.in 20 key answers provided by the Expert Committee, the Supreme Court has emphasized the need for judicial restrain in the matter of interference by the Courts with the key answers provided by the expert committee and in paragraph No.8 of the judgment, observed the extent and power of the Court to interfere in matters of academic nature has been the subject-
matter of a number of cases and it is relevant to extract the paragraphs Nos.9,10 &11:
9.In Kanpur University v.Samir Gupta[Kanpur Universityv.Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309] , this Court was dealing with a case relating to the Combined Pre-Medical Test.
Admittedly, the examination setter himself had provided the key answers and there were no committees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key answers provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved that three of the key answers were wrong. The following observations of the Court are pertinent:
“16. … We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard as correct.” http://www.judis.nic.in 21 The Court gave further directions but we are concerned mainly with one that the State Government should devise a system for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters.
10. In Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. [Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] , this Court after referring to a catena of judicial pronouncements summarised the legal position in the following terms: (SCC pp. 368-69, para 30) “30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:
30.1. 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; 30.2. 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;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate—it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; 30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.” http://www.judis.nic.in 22
11.We may also refer to the following observations in paras 31 and 32 which show why the constitutional courts must exercise restraint in such matters: (Ran Vijay Singh case [Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] , SCC p. 369) “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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 23 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.”
4. In paragraph No.15 of the judgment, the Apex Court held that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by giving the directions which amounted to setting aside the decision of experts in the field.
5. In view of the legal principles settled, this Court is of an opinion that in view of the expert opinion offered by the Committee of experts, in respect of the disputed questions in this writ petition and the revision already effected by the respondents in respect of the disputed questions, http://www.judis.nic.in 24 no further consideration is required in the present writ petitioner.
6. In view of the similar order passed in the above writ petition, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
02.11.2018 sk Internet:Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order To
1.The Secretary The State of Tamilnadu, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Chairman, http://www.judis.nic.in 25 Teachers Recruitment Board, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
3.The Expert Committee, (Chemistry) Teachers Recruitment Board, EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound College Road, Chennai-600 006.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
sk http://www.judis.nic.in 26 W.P.No.25099 of 2017 02.11.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in