Madras High Court
C.Rajeshwari vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 28 November, 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.11.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU W.P.(MD)No.19259 of 2013 W.P.(MD)Nos.19263, 19288, 19305, 19315 and 19323 to 19325, 19356 and 19357 of 2013 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 and 1 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) Nos.2 and 3 of 2013 in W.P.(MD) No.19356 of 2013 W.P.(MD).No.19259 of 2013 C.Rajeshwari .. Petitioner vs 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, 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 Director of Elementary Education, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006. 4.The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned final key answer published by the 4th respondent for the written examination conducted on 18.08.2013 for Tamil Nadu Teachers Eligibility Test (TNTET) Exam 2013 in respect of Question Nos.7, 9, 61, 95 in Booklet series 'A' is concerned, quash the same and direct the 4th respondent to revise the final key answers and award marks to the petitioner. !For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Subramanian ^For Respondents ... Mr.G.Muthu Kannan Government Advocate :COMMON ORDER
The Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment Board, Chennai conducted Tamil Nadu Teachers Eligibility Test (TNTET) Exam - 2013 on 18.08.2013. It consists of two papers (Paper - I and Paper - II). The question paper is of objective type. The petitioners herein applied for the same and appeared in the said examination.
2. After the examinations were over, the Teachers Recruitment Board issued the tentative key answers through its official website, calling for objections. Admittedly several objections were received from the candidates in respect of certain key answers. The Teachers Recruitment Board, thereafter referred those disputed questions to the experts in the subject by constituting experts board for each subject. The subject experts considered the objections and as a matter of fact agreed with some objections and disagreed with many. Based on the opinion of the experts, the final key answers were published through the official website. The results were published on 05.11.2013.
3. After publication of the results, immediately number of writ petitions were filed before this Court challenging the correctness of the key answers to various questions. This Court find a prima-facie case in favour of some of the petitioners and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta, reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1250 went into the said challenges. As directed by this Court, number of experts were called to the Court in each subject in respect of the challenges made to the key answers and the experts appeared and offered opinion. The matter were also argued at length and number of textbooks were cited and having considered all the above, this Court has decided the challenges in respect of atleast around 65 questions. As a matter of fact, this Court had to spend every days' post lunch session for these Writ Petitions, challenging the key answers.
4. Because of the challenges made before this Court, the Teachers Recruitment Board could not proceed further to go for the process of selection of candidates for appointment. As a result, the process has almost come to a halt. There are Government Schools as well as Private Schools in the state, which are without sufficient number of teachers. As a matter of fact, a writ petition was filed before this Court by students of a school, seeking a mandamus to the educational authorities to appoint a computer science teacher, as in the said school there was no computer science teacher. Similar situation prevails in various schools in the State. The Government is struggling to appoint the teachers. Considering the urgency of the matter, this Court has spent almost number of post lunch sessions in examining the cases continuously without break and finally decided all the matters. The key answer to some questions have been disagreed by the Court and this Court has directed the Teachers Recruitment Board to revalue the answer sheets of all the candidates, who appeared in the examination and this will take atleast one month for the Teachers Recruitment Board to complete the process and then they have to start the process of selection. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that this Court cannot go on entertaining the writ petitions, challenging the key answers. After publication of the results, sufficient time had been given and a number of days have been spent in examining the challenges made to the key answers to the questions. As I have already pointed out, if any more number of writ petitions are entertained and the challenges are considered, then this will be an endless process and it may get prolonged for few more months. If any more writ petitions are entertained, this will further worsen the situation in the State because the schools will go without adequate number of teachers.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is no laches on the part of the petitioners. But in my considered opinion, the present petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Though the time gap between publication of the result and date of presentation of the present writ petitions are only few weeks, it cannot be correct to hold that there is no laches on the part of the petitioners. The question of laches cannot be decided by applying any straight jacket formula. It depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case in view of the facts, which I have narrated above and the urgency of the matter, even the delay of few weeks in filing these writ petitions will amount to laches on the part of the petitioners.
6. I make it very clear that in respect of this matter, we cannot entertain endless litigations. In such view of the matter, I hold that these Writ Petitions are liable only to be dismissed. As I have directed in other writ petitions, the answer papers of the present writ petitioners will also be revalued by the Teachers Recruitment Board and the petitioners may also get the benefits out of the same. It also needs to be mentioned that most of the questions which have been challenged in these writ petitions have already been decided. In view of all the above, I am inclined only to dismiss these writ petitions.
7. In the result, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.
sj To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, 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 Director of Elementary Education, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.
4.The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, D.P.I. Campus, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.