Madras High Court
R.Thanapal vs The Chairman on 29 April, 2025
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
W.P.No.1860 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 29.04.2025
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P.No. 1860 of 2020 &
W.M.P.Nos.2172 and 2175 of 2020
1. R.Thanapal
2. R.Saranya ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The Chairman,
Teacher Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Buildings,
DPI Complex College Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006
2. The Director of School Education,
DPI Compound, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 106 ...Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to award marks to the petitioners
to TRB Final Key Master Question Nos.101, 3 & 7, 140, 143, 145 respectively in
the Examination conducted for the recruitment to the post of Computer Instructors
Grade-I (Post Graduate Cadre) for Tamilnadu Higher secondary Educational
Page 1 / 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:04 pm )
W.P.No.1860 of 2020
Service under the 1st respondent, as per the Notification No.09/2019 dated
01.03.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the
respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment.
[Prayer amended vide order dated .04.2025 made in W.M.P.No.10580 of
2024 by VBSJ]
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Umapathi
For Respondents : Mr.R.Siddharath for R1
Standing Counsel
Mr.C.Prabhakaran for R2
Government Advocate (Education)
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for an issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to award marks to the petitioners to TRP Final Key Master Question Nos.101, 3 & 7, 140, 143, 145 respectively in the Examination conducted for the recruitment to the post of Computer Instructors Grade-I (Post Graduate Cadre) for Tamilnadu Higher Secondary Educational Service under the 1st respondent, as per the Notification No.09/2019 dated 01.03.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment.
2. The brief facts of the case, as averred by the petitioners, are as follows:-
(i) The case of the petitioners are that the 1st respondent issued Page 2 / 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:04 pm ) W.P.No.1860 of 2020 Notification No.09/19 dated 01.03.2019 for the recruitment of 814 Computer Instructors (PG Cadre) in the School Education Department. The petitioners possess M.Sc., and B.Ed., qualifications. The scheme of examination consisted of a computer based test. As per G.O.Ms.No.107, School Education (q2) Department dated 24.07.2003; and Gov. Lr.No.12305/Q2/03-02 dated 8.10.2003, candidates have to secure a minimum of 50% marks. The exam was conducted in multiple sessions with normalization of marks. The selection was based on two stages (i)online computer based examination and (ii) candidate verification. The first session was held on 23.06.2019, and the second session on 27.06.2019 due to technical issues. Then, the TRB published Tentative answer key on 29.07.2019, and the petitioners submitted their objections on 01.08.2019, regarding the error in display of certain questions. Subsequently, the TRB published Final Answer Key on 25.11.2019 wherein multiple answers were changed. The petitioners raised objections to the said final answer key. Then the 1st petitioner herein filed writ petition in W.P.No.34303 of 2019, challenging the final answer key, wherein this Court, vide order dated 10.12.2019, directed the 1st petitioner to submit his objections and further directed the expert committee to take a decision on or before 20.12.2019. However, the answer key was not published despite the Court's direction.
Page 3 / 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:04 pm ) W.P.No.1860 of 2020
(ii) According to the petitioners, in the year 1999, the Government of Tamil Nadu took a policy decision to offer computer science as an elective subject to the students of classes 11 and 12 in the government higher secondary school in the state. To give effect to the said policy, the state government awarded a five year contract to the Electronic Corporation of Tamil Nadu (ELCOT) to provide not only computer hardware and software, but also the man power for conducting the classes. From the year 1999 to 2005, ELCOT engaged computer instructors on a contract basis. Then, after the year 2005, the government passed G.O.Ms.No.187 dated 04.10.2006, to create one post of Computer Instructor in every government higher secondary school in the state with a requirement of 50% qualifying marks and waiving B.Ed degree for existing instructors. This decision was challenged before this Court in a batch of writ petitions filed by the B.Ed degree holders, which were allowed by order dated 13.03.2007. Against the said an order, Writ Appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1215 of 2007, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench allowed the writ appeal by its Judgement dated 22.08.2008. Subsequently, the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench was challenged by the B.Ed qualified teachers before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4187 of 2009. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 09.07.2009, disposed the said appeal by holding that the special recruitment test held on 12.10.2008 pursuant to Page 4 / 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:04 pm ) W.P.No.1860 of 2020 the High Court’s order dated 22.08.2008, being a one-time exception and dictated by sympathetic grounds insofar as the adhoc computer instructors working for long years are concerned was justified and further invalidated selection of those scoring below 50% marks. However the Apex Court allowed another one time test for those who scored morethan 35% but less than 50% by issuing an advertisement besids being sponsored by the employment exchange. Subsequently several applications were filed for clarification of the above said order. Among the several applications, Application No. I.A.No.4 of 2009 filed by the State Government is of particular significance, as far as the present petition is concerned, the prayer sought for in the said application is extracted below:-
“(a) Clarify and permit the State Government to conduct examination to the candidates who have secured 35% to 49% marks in the examination and declare the results of the candidates who secured more than 50% marks as eligible candidates for appointment.
(b) Clarify and permit the State Goverment to recruit Vocational computer instructors for the existing vacancies 175 and future vacancies for the post of computer instructors through the emploment exchange based on the seniority with the employment exchange as per the policy decision and also as per the G.O.Ms.No.290, School education department dated 06.12.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.66, School Education Department dated 02.03.2009;” Page 5 / 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:04 pm ) W.P.No.1860 of 2020 With respect to the said application, the Hon'ble Apex Court, passed an order dated 19.11.2009 wherein at Paragraph No.11 it is observed that “it was not inclined to alter or review its earlier order dated 09.07.2009, however, it clarified the said order by permitting the State Government to (a)...(ii) Recruit Vocational Computer Instructors for the existing 175 vacancies and future vacancies for the post of Computer Instructors through the Employment Exchange based on the seniority with the employment exchange as per the policy decision of the State Government as well as the Government Orders applicable to appointment to the post of computer instructors.”
(iii) Thereafter, a second recruitment test was held on 24.01.2010. Then TRB published a provisional selection list on 11.01.2020 where it filled 617 out of 814 while the names of remaining 117 candidates were kept pending / reserved due to various cases before the high court and also for other reasons. These petitioners had been waiting for more than 15 years were deprived of the opportunity and were unfairly ignored, while younger and new entrants were favoured. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
(iv) Further, the petitioners filed an additional affidavit where it was stated that there were complaints raised regarding technical issues, absence of CCTV, unauthorised mobile use and extension of exam duration. Therefore, this Court restrained the TRB from finalizing the results. Due to server problems, exams in 3 Page 6 / 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:04 pm ) W.P.No.1860 of 2020 centres were re-conducted on 27.06.2019. This was challenged before this Court and the learned single judge appointed a retired judge for as a one man committee. This again was challenged by the petitioners in W.A.Nos.330 & 398 of 2021 and the Hon’ble Division Bench by its order dated 10.02.2021 modified the order of the single judge and appointed a two member committee to investigate the irregularities across all the centres. Then the committee gave a report dated 31.05.2021 stating that they found no malpractice and other grievances like incorrect key answers, syllabus mismatch and normalization concerns were deemed to be outside the committee's scope.
(v) Further, the petitioners filed another additional affidavit wherein it was stated that the Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) conducted an examination on 23.06.2019, which could not be completed in three centres due to technical glitches leading to a re-exam on 27.06.2019. While the tentative key was published on 29.07.2019, the final key and the mark list were released on 25.11.2019. The TRB adopted normalization method which unfairly inflated the marks of re-exam candidates thereby resulting in discrepancies. One candidate namely G.Roselin wrote the examination wherein her mark was only 70 as per the final answer key dated 25.11.2019, which was increased to 78.0145 after normalization, while the petitioners, who scored 84.85 and 83.84 respectively were reduced to 79.83 and 78.82 respectively, impacting their selection. Page 7 / 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:04 pm ) W.P.No.1860 of 2020
(vi) Further, for the question numbers 3,7,101,140,143 & 145 correct answers were not credited due to display or key-related issues. Despite raising grievances and filing a writ petition in W.P.No.1860 of 2020, the TRB proceeded with the selection process without addressing the petitioners' concerns. The TRB in a separate writ petition in W.P.No.12794 of 2020, admitted similar errors and validated the petitioners' claims. The normalisation method, lack of transparency and incorrect answer keys had unfairly altered the merit list and the selection outcome, hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the TRB modified the tentative answer key and as per the suggestion of the Subject Expert Committee consisting of 7 members, the final answer key not been considered and TRB has unilaterally altered without any legal support. The petitioners submitted their objections to the final key within 3 days of publication of final key by the TRB on 28.11.2019. However, till date it has not been considered by the respondents which amounts to gross violation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.34303 of 2019. Further it is contended that the TRB filed a counter dated 15.10.2020 in W.P.No.12794 of 2020, wherein the expert committee opined that the correct answer for question no.101 as FIRST 20 SECOND (option B). However, in the results which were published on 28.12.2020 Page 8 / 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:04 pm ) W.P.No.1860 of 2020 for 742 candidates, the said key answer was not taken into consideration; and even in the subsequent selection of 50 candidates on 12.08.2021, the same was not taken into consideration. Therefore, the decision making process in the selection of the candidates is totally illegal and unreasonable. Further, the petitioners counsel relied on a judgement in the case of K.Vinoprathavs Teachers Recuritment Board 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 459, wherein this Court held that “Judicial review cannot be totally ousted when key answer is manifestly erroneous, court cannot shut eyes to obvious”
4. On the other hand, in an affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is averred as follows:-
(i) The Teacher Recruitment Board constituted expert committees comprising (minimum of 3 subject experts) to review objections and finalize answers based on the Master question paper. The examination was conducted in Computer Based Test mode and questions/options were shuffled per candidate.
For Question No.101, the expert committee initially identified option B/D asthe correct answer. A subsequent review by an Anna University Professor affirmed “D” (error message) as the correct answer, which was adopted in the final key. The petitioners, however, chose other option and were accordingly not awarded marks. Similarly, Question No. 143 was scrutinized by 2 subject experts and all Page 9 / 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:04 pm ) W.P.No.1860 of 2020 the options have been declared as correct A/B/C/D by the subject experts. However, based on the answer to this question, a committee consisting of 3 subject experts including experts from Anna University was formed and the correct answer to this question was declared as “C” in the expert report dated 05.07.2019. Therefore the final answer was published as “C”. Further, question No.145 was reviewed by 3 experts and the correct answer was reported as “B” as per the experts report dated 05.07.2019. Then, the final answer key and results were published on 25.11.2019 and the provisional selection list was released on 28.12.2020. The recruitment process for the post of Computer Instructor Grade – I was concluded and 814 candidates were appointed and are in service for more than four years.
5. The learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent further contends that the petitioners had initially prayed to consider them by awarding weightage marks for the period of wait after registration in the professional and executive employment office for the post of Computer Instructor Grade – I. However, after a period 4 years, they have filed an amendment petition praying to award marks for question nos. 3,7,101,140,143 & 145. Hence, prays to dismiss the present writ petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents placed on record carefully.
Page 10 / 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:04 pm ) W.P.No.1860 of 2020
7. Upon considering the pleadings and averments made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel on the side of the respondents, the following issues arises for consideration:-
(i) Whether TRB failed to ensure a fair examination process by not addressing technical glitches in Question Nos.3 & 7?
(ii) Whether TRB's contradictory stance on question 101 in W.P.No.12794 (accepting both B&D options but finalizing D) warrants judicial intervention?
(iii) Whether TRB's change from Option B to A in Question 140, despite expert opinion supporting both, was unfair?
(iv) Whether TRB acted arbitrarily by keeping C as the final answer for quesion 143, despite experts deeming all options incorrect?
(iv) Whether TRB's rejection of expert -supported options A & B in Question 145 was unjustified?
8. As far as Issue No.(i) is concerned, while answering Question Nos.3 &7, 61 candidates had reported technical glitches with regard to Question No.3 and 50 candidates had reported technical glitches with regard to Question No.7. However, the TRB has not addressed these issues, therefore, 2 marks shall be awarded to each petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court. Page 11 / 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:04 pm ) W.P.No.1860 of 2020
9. As far as Issue No.(ii) is concerned, the Question No.101 is 'What is the output of the following code segment? Int a = 5 Count <<'FIRST”<<(<<2)<<”SECOND”, the answer key for Question No.101 was verified by a panel of subject experts and the correct answer for question no.101 was reported as 'B/D' viz., B) FIRST 20 SECOND D) Error Message. However, the TRB claimed that 'if D is accepted, other options are not suitable', which is contradictory to the opinion of the Expert committee. Further, the TRB recitified the errors as could be seen in the counter to the Writ Petition No.12794 of 2020 on 15.10.2020, where the Subject Expert Committee accepted the Tentative Key instead of the Final Key for the Master Question No.101 and affirmed that the Answer is Option B, viz., FIRST 20 SECONDS. In view of the contradictory statement of the TRB, this Court is of the view that the 1st petitioner, who had chosen option, 'D', viz., 'FIRST 20 SECONDS' shall be awarded one mark, as per the view of the Experts Committee.
10. As far as Issue No.(iii) is concerned, for the Question No.140, 'The driver used in OLE DB s called as”? , the answer key that was verified by a panel of subject experts was reported as 'A or B' viz., A) Provider B) ODBC. However, the TRB later claimed that the 'Evidence Satisfies only A', which is contradictory to the opinion of the Expert committee. Therefore, this Court is of the view Page 12 / 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:04 pm ) W.P.No.1860 of 2020 that in the light of the SOP of the TRB, Clause 40, it is clear that based on the opinion of the experts committee, the final key has to be published after the approval of the controller of examinations, therefore, the 1st petitioner, who had chosen option 'C', 'ODBC', shall be awarded one mark, as per the view of Experts Committee.
11. As far as Issue No.(iv) is concerned, a committee consisting of three members, viz., Dr.Arockia Xavier Annie.R, Asst.Professor, M/s.V.Mary Anita Rajam, Professor from DCSE, CEG, Anna University, M/s.I.Diana Judith, Asst.Professor, from SMC, Chennai gave an opinion that for Question No.143, viz., TIFF stands for 'Tagged Interchange File Format', which is option 'C', by relying on a book 'Multimedia Making it Work' by 'Tay Vaughan', Tata Mchraw Hill Publication Page No.97. Therefore, the petitioner, R.Thanapal, who had Option 'A', 'Tagged Interchange File Format' shall be awarded one mark, in the considered opinion of this Court.
12. As far as Issue No.(v) is concerned, a committee consisting three members, viz., Dr.Arockia Xavier Annie.R, Asst.Professor, M/s.V.Mary Anita Rajam, Professor from DCSE, CEG, Anna University, M/s I.Diana Judith, Asst.Professor from SMC, Chennai gave an opinion that the answer for Question Page 13 / 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:04 pm ) W.P.No.1860 of 2020 No.145, viz., 'The process of recording sound, stored in the form of thousands of individual measurements, each at a discrete point in time is called '...........' is Synthesizing', which is option 'B', by relying on Page No.144 of the book 'Multimedia Making it Work' by 'Tay Vaughan' and another book Sound Synthesis & Sampling, (3rd Edition) Martin Russ, published by Taylor & Francis Group. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, R.Thanapal, who had chosen Option 'A' 'Sampling', cannot be awarded marks.
13. In view of the above findings this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following observations:-
(i) As far as Q.Nos.3 and 7 are concerned, the petitioners, shall be awarded one mark each to the said questions.
(ii) As far as Q.No.101 is concerned, the petitioner, Thanapal shall be awarded one mark.
(iii) As far as Q.No.140 is concerned, the petitioner, Thanapal shall be awarded one mark.
(iii) As far as Q.No.143 is concerned, the petitioner, Thanapal shall be awarded one mark.
(iv) As far as Q.No.145 is concerned, the petitioner, Thanapal is not entitled for any marks.
Page 14 / 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:04 pm ) W.P.No.1860 of 2020
(v) The Teachers Recruitment Board shall allot the appropriate marks, as mentioned above, to the 1st petitioner and process the same. As far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, the TRB shall verify the answer sheet of the 2nd petitioner and if she is found eligible, she shall be awarded marks. Further, if the petitioners are otherwise found qualified, the TRB is further directed to proceed with the same in the manner known to law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Further, the grant of relief shall remain confined to the petitioners alone and this Court does not intend to open the flood gates for the fence-sitters.
29.04.2025 Index:Yes / No; Internet: Yes/no Speaking / non speaking order ssd To
1. The Chairman, Teacher Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Buildings, DPI Complex College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006
2. The Director of School Education, DPI Compound, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 106 Page 15 / 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:04 pm ) W.P.No.1860 of 2020 V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
ssd W.P.No.1860 of 2020 29.04.2025 Page 16 / 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 03:57:04 pm )