Madras High Court
A.B.Sathish Kumar vs The Chairman on 26 February, 2010
Author: M. Venugopal
Bench: M. Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.02.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL W.P.No. 6853 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.No.8825 of 2003 A.B.Sathish Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. The Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board EVK Sampath Maaligai 4th Floor DPI Compound College Road Chennai-6 .... Respondent This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of the writ of Certiorarified mandamus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Kumar For Respondent : Mr.Mr.A.Suresh AGP(Education) O R D E R
The petitioner is filed the writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, in directing the respondent to produce the answer sheet of the petitioner in the written examination conducted by the respondent on 21.4.2002 for the post of School Assistants and Block Resource Teacher's for which results have been declared and announced on 24.2.2003 and allow the petitioner to inspect the same and direct the respondent to correct the mistake in the marks awarded to the petitioner after re-valuation and further to direct the respondent to reserve one seat for the post of Block Reserve Teachers(Physics) in the Recruitment conducted by the respondent vide advertisement 4/2002.
2. The petitioner passed his 10th standard in the year 1990 and +2 course in the year 1992 after studying in M.M.Higher Secondary School, Idaikal. Later, he joined his bachelor's course in Sri Paramakalyani College Alwarkurichi and completed the Course in 1995. Subsequently, he joined B.Ed. Correspondence course of the Annamalai University in the year 1996 and completed the said Course in 1997. He enrolled his name with the Employment Registration Office at Tirunelveli bearing registration No. 11203/97.
3. The Government of Tamil Nadu proposed to recruit School Assistant including language Pandits in the Tamil Nadu School Educational Subordinate Service and Block Resource Teachers(BRT)(in the scale of Pay of School Assistants) under the Sarvashiksha Abiyan through an open common written competitive examination and on certificate verification based on merit and communal rotation and applicable reservations and priorities. A direct recruitment notice was advertised as Advertisement No.4/2002 inviting applications . As per Advertisement the written competitive examination was scheduled on 21.4.2002 between 10.00 a.m and 1.00p.m., The petitioner applied for the post of Block Resource Teachers(Physics) and was issued with a hall ticket to write the examination conducted by the respondent on 21.4.2002 and he was assigned the Roll NO.M 04020104. His examination centre was at Mary Sargent Girls Higher Secondary School, Nagercoil Road, Palayamcottai, Tirunelveli District. The results were declared in June 2002. The valuation was made by the computer and a copy of the answer sheet (OMR Answer Sheet) would be furnished to the candidate, if he desires to have the same.
4. The questions were formulated for a total mark of 150 with 150 questions each carrying one mark. The mode of answering the question was by darkening the circle of the answer made by the candidate . The petitioner was awarded 107 marks out of 149. Though, the questions were for a total mark of 150, one question viz., 135 was deleted and therefore, the marks were awarded only for 149 questions. The petitioner was ranked 107. Revaluation was ordered by the respondent in respect of the candidates since it was found that the keys to two of the answers to the questions were wrong. He had answered correctly for question Nos.70 and 75 as per the keys and his OMR Answer Sheet(The duplicate of original mark sheet) Hence after revaluation his marks ought to be 109/149. viz, his earlier marks of 107 plus the correct answer after revaluation. But the mark sheet after revaluation shows only 107 marks and his rank was shown as 123. The revaluation marks wee announced by the end of June 2002.
5. The petitioner made a representation on 3.7.2002 to the respondent with request to rectify the mistake in the revaluation of his answer sheet. He also sent a telegram prior to his representation. He made enquires through his friends at Chennai in regard to the mistake committed by the respondent, but no reply was forthcoming. After a lapse of six months , on 24.2.2003, the respondent announced the result by releasing a list of candidates selected in the written examination held on 21.4.2002. He rushed all the way from Tenkasi to meet the officials of the respondent and represented before them about the mistake but there was no response.
6. Though the petitioner was awarded 107 in revaluation, if his date of birth 3.3.1975 was taken into consideration, then he rank junior to many candidates. But all the candidates who scored 108 marks were selected and as per the intimation sent to the selected candidates , certificate verification was scheduled on 5.3.2003. After coming out successfully in the written test conducted by the respondent due to mistake committed by the office of the respondent, the petitioner was not selected for appointment and he was deprived of his legitimate rights. As the copy of mark sheet furnished to the petitioner even before the revaluation, the same would show the question Nos.70 and 75 were correctly answered by him thereby he was to get two marks more. Inasmuch as, there was a deletion of question No.40, after revaluation then the total marks would come to 148 and his mark would be 108/148. In these circumstances, the petitioner had filed the above writ petition before this Court.
7. The respondent in his counter had stated that the Teachers' Recruitment Board made an endeavour of a new method of announcing the keys to the questions of the recruitment examination over the internet, and also in giving a carbonless copy of the Answer Sheet at the examination hall itself to the candidates and this was designed to ushering in transparency, accuracy, confidence building and accountability on all the participants in the Recruitment Examination. Continuing further, it is the stand of the respondent that after the publication of written examination, the results in the dailies and in the internet. The Teachers Reserved Board received representations from some of the candidates, mentioning that the keys already published after careful consideration announced through internet, notice board, and dailies like Thinathanthi that candidates possessing valid material for any doubtful questions or keys would bring them to the knowledge of the Board upto 5.00p.m., on 30.5.2002 and the Board of verification consisting of two professors was constituted for revaluation one went through the disputed keys in each subject and further it is on the recommendation offered by the Subject Experts, some answer keys were changed in certain subjects and some questions were deleted and later the answer sheets of all the candidates were revaluated and results were published.
8. Further the disputed questions 70 and 75 which were referred to by the petitioner wee already revised and marks also awarded to the candidate. But his total marks remain the same. The petitioner's marks are as mentioned below:
Roll No. Name Written test marks
------------------------- Before after revaluation revaluation community Mo4 020104 subject:Physics A.B.Sathish Kumar 107/148 107/148 BC After revaluation, the merit cum communal roster was again prepared and candidates were called for Certificate Verification. The petitioner was also considered under the communal turns applicable to him(GT General and BC General).
9. The cut off marks for the subject Physics in the first round of selection (July 2002) was hereunder:
Subject Community turn Cut off marks Physics G.T.General turn
------------------------ BC General 114/148
------------------------109/148
In order to fill the unfilled and residual vacancies, a second round of selection was made in February 2003 and the cut marks for the second round of BRT Selection were as below:
Subject Community turn Cut-off marks Physics GT General Turn
------------------------ BC General Turn 108/148
------------------------107/148
10. That apart, the stand of the respondent as per the counter was that the petitioner was not selected because he obtained lowest cut off mark of 107 out of 148 in the written examination and there were several other candidates belonging to the same communal turn BC (G) who secured the same marks. As per the instructions of the Government, when ever two or more candidates secured the same mark inter-se seniority was decided on the basis of seniority in age and the petitioner date of birth was 3.3.1975 and the cut off date of birth for selection for 107 marks in BC(G) category (in the second round) was 5.6.1971 and that candidate was raked 107 in the merit list whereas the petitioner was ranked 123 merit list.
11. In the third round of selection conducted in May 2003, the petitioner was qualified for selection and hence he was provisionally selected and called for Certificate Verification on 14.5.2003. The petitioner had accepted the selection and produced the certificates for verification and received the final selection order dated 19.5.2003. The petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court, after the second round of selection and this Court passed an interim direction on 7.3.2003 that the selection list should not be finalised until further orders. But the interim order of this Court was received by this Board only on 18.3.2003 and therefore, the Board published the results on 11.3.2003 and selected candidates were also informed of the selection and therefore, on receipt of this Court's interim direction, it was decided by the Board that one post may be kept vacant for the petitioner in obedience to this Court's order. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was no way adversely affected and selection to the posts of Block Reserve Teacher(Physics) were made strictly in accordance with the Government orders and that the petitioner accepted the selection in the third round and as such the writ petition is devoid of merits.
12. In the additional counter filed by the respondent, it was mentioned inter alia that on the recommendation of the Selection Committee two wrong questions viz., Q.Nos.14 and 135 were deleted and key answer 70 and 75 were changed and the answer sheets of all the candidates were re-valuated and results were published and hence the following changes were carried over during the revaluation.
1. The wrong question No.14 and 135 were deleted
2. The answer keys were changed for the following questions Question No. Wrong Answer Key Changed to 70 A B 75 C A and moreover, the petitioner had not properly shaded answer for Question No.149 and an impression was not cleared and therefore, computer had not valued the question No.149 and before revaluation the candidate had scored only 105 out of 148. Further after revaluation of answer sheets based on the scrutiny committee, the petitioner was awarded two marks for the question Nos.70 and 75 as he shaded the correct answer as B and A for the above questions and after revaluation, the total marks was declared as 107 out of 148 but the cut off marks for the first round of selection in the BC Communal turn was 109/148 and hence the petitioner could not be selected for the first round of selection and that the selection to the post of Block Resource Teachers were done strictly in accordance with Government order.
13. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it was inter alia mentioned that' in the original counter, it was stated by the respondent in paragraph 6" Before revaluation the marks obtained by the petitioner was 107/148. But in the additional counter, it was stated in page 2 that' the results were published on 20.5.2002 and the marks obtained by the writ petition were 107 out of 150. The total marks mentioned in the original counter was 148 and in the additional counter as 150 and both these contentions were wrong and as per the answer key (before revaluation ) one question ie., Question No.135 was deleted and hence the total number of questions would be only 149 and not 148 or 150 as stated in the counter and the additional counter filed by the respondent and the admitted case of the respondent was that before revaluation, the petitioner's mark was 107 and therefore, the marks obtained by him was 107/149 and after publication of the results, the answers for two questions ie., Question Nos.70 and 75 were changed and before revaluation as per answer key for Question No.70A, the petitioner had answered"B" and for question No.75, the petitioner had answered "A". But the answer keys are "A" and "C" respectively and therefore, no marks were awarded to the petitioner and his marks were only 107/149. After revaluation as per the answer key, for Question No.70-B, the petitioner answer was "B" and for question No.75-A, his answer was "A" and in revaluation all the candidates who had answered"B" for question NO.70 and"A" for question No.75 were given two marks and as such the petitioner was given two marks and his total marks came to 107 + 2 = 109. After revaluation one more question ie., question No.14 was also deleted and therefore, the total number of questions were reduced to 148(since two questions viz., question Nos.135 and 14 were deleted out of 150 questions).
14. Moreover , after revaluation, the petitioner's mark was 107+2=109 and inasmuch as one question was deleted viz., question No.14 , his marks would be 109-1 = 108/148(150-2) but the respondent stated that the marks were only 107 even after revaluation and after verification of the answer sheet with the answer keys provided by the respondent, it could be seen that the petitioner had answered 108 questions correctly out of total 148 questions(since two questions were deleted) and hence the petitioner's marks could be only 108/148 and not 107/148. Also, if the petitioner was awarded with the correct marks viz., 108/148 then he would have been selected in the second round of selection itself so as to complete 30 years of service entitling him to claim full pension benefits and the third round of selection and the appointment was made in December 2003 and if the petitioner was awarded correct marks viz., 108 marks, he would have appointed in March 2003 itself( second round of selection) and therefore, he would have been obtained the benefits of pension under the old pension scheme and new pension scheme had come into force from 1.4.2003. In short, the petitioner was appointed only in December 2003 had lost one year in promotion and he was promoted as Secondary Grade Teacher only in 2008 though he would have got promotion in 2007 itself even he was awarded 108 marks and appointed in the second round of selection in March 2003 itself and added further as per Pension Rules, pertaining to the Government Servants only if a person had completed 30 years of service, he would be eligible to claim full pension and since the petitioner was appointed only in the third round of selection, he would be lacking seven months of service to put in 30 years of service.
15. On the side of the petitioner, a comparative score of marks was furnished to this Court indicating that out of 150 questions, question Nos.14 and 135 were deleted and therefore, out of 148 questions, the petitioner had scored 108 marks. In the said comparative score of marks projected by the petitioner , the petitioner had given details of question numbers, key answer, second key answer and his answer and the marks to be awarded thereto.
16. Per contra, on the side of the respondent, a comparative score of marks was submitted before this Court showing question Nos.14 and 135 were deleted and the marks to be awarded by the petitioner was 107 out of 148.
17. In the present case on hand, the petitioner before revaluation had scored 105 out of 148 and after revaluation of answer sheet, the petitioner was awarded two marks for question Nos.70 and 75 since he shaded the correct answer as "B" and "A" for the said questions and therefore, after revaluation his total marks would be 107 out of 148.
18. The bone of contention of the respondent is that the petitioner had not properly shaded the answer for question No.149 because of the fact that the impression was not clear and therefore the computer had not valued the said question.
19. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had shaded the answer as "C" for question 149 and since the correct answer was "C", the petitioner should be given one mark and if one mark was awarded then the petitioner's tally of mark would come to 108 out of 148. In this connection, this court points out that in the instructions to candidate, Sl.NO.5 referred to ' circle should be darkened completely so that the alphabet inside the circle is not visible' and after perusing the xerox copy of OMR answer sheet in respect of the petitioner bearing NO.1010515, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner darkened the circle"C" completely but on the left hand side of the circle had strayed a bit. For that the act of the petitioner should not be penalised and in any event, the contention of the respondent that the impression was not clear in question No.149 when the petitioner shaded the answer and as such the computer had not valued the said question was not a tenable one and this Court opines that the petitioner should be awarded with one mark for the question No.149 since he had shaded the correct answer and impression was good and if the said one mark was to be taken into account and included then, the tally of marks scored by the petitioner would come to 108 out of 148 to which the petitioner was entitled to quite legitimately and rightly so. Therefore, the petitioner's correct tally of marks should be 108 out of 148 and not 107 out of 148 projected by the respondent and accordingly, this Court directs the respondent to correct the mistake in the marks awarded to the petitioner as 108 out of 148 and further the respondent is to act in terms of its counter in paragraph 13 wherein it among other things had stated that 'immediately on receipt of the High Court's interim direction, it was decided by the Board that one post may be kept vacant for the petitioner,within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and resultantly, this Court allows the writ petition in the interest of justice. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is closed.
26-2-2010 Index:Yes Internet:Yes sg M.VENUGOPAL,J sg To The Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board EVK Sampath Maaligai 4th Floor DPI Compound College Road,Chennai-6 Order in W.P.No.6853/2003
-02-2010 PRE DELIVERY ORDER IN W.P.No.6853 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.NO.8825 of 2003 To Thiru Mr.Justice M.VENUGOPAL Most respectfully submitted P.A.