Madras High Court
A.Yasmeen vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 9 October, 2023
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
W.P.No.26332 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders Reserved on : 12..09..2023
Orders Pronounced on : 09..10..2023
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Writ Petition No.26332 of 2022
and
W.M.P.No.25407 of 2022
A.Yasmeen ..... Petitioner
-Versus-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by The Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
Directorate of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
3.The Chairman,
Teacher Recruitment Board,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
..... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to restore the Tentative
Key Answer for Question No.52 (Correct Answer Key 'D') Question No.67
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1 of 16
W.P.No.26332 of 2022
(Correct Answer Key 'C') & Question No.71 (Correct Answer Key 'A') and
correct the TRB Final Master Key Answer for Question No.64 – correct Key
Answer is 'C' & Question No.108 – Correct key answer is 'C' for English and
award the petitioner 5 marks and consequently select and appoint the petitioner
(Roll No.21PG210174618) to the post of Post Graduate Assistant – English
from the date when her batchmates are appointed with all service and monetary
benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Nethaji
For Respondent (s) : Mr.P.Baladhandayutham,
Special Government Pleader
for RR1 & 2
Mr.R.Neelakandan,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.C.Kathiravan,
Standing Counsel for R3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to restore the Tentative Key Answer for Question No.52 (Correct Answer Key 'D') Question No.67 (Correct Answer Key 'C') & Question No.71 (Correct Answer Key 'A') and correct the TRB Final Master Key Answer for Question No.64 – correct Key Answer is 'C' & Question No.108 – Correct key answer is 'C' for English and award the petitioner 5 marks and consequently select and appoint the petitioner (Roll No.21PG210174618) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 of 16 W.P.No.26332 of 2022 to the post of Post Graduate Assistant – English from the date when her batchmates are appointed with all service and monetary benefits.
2. The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Post Graduate Assistant (English). She belongs to Backward Class Muslim (BCM) community. She is fully qualified to apply for the post and she applied for the post pursuant to the Notification / Advertisement No.01/2021 dated 09.09.2021 issued by the 3 rd respondent for direct recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Assistants / Physical Education Directors Grade-I/Computer Instructor Grade-I in School Education Department and other Departments for the year 2020-2021. There is no dispute in it. There is also no dispute regarding the Scheme of Examination. Her register/roll number is 21PG0210174618. She had taken the written examination on 18.02.2022 and secured 93 out of 146 marks. The grievance of the petitioner is that the answers which she had given to Question Nos.52, 67, 71, 64 & 108 are correct and if she had been given marks for those questions, she would have been considered for certificate verification and selected for appointment.
3. Since the petitioner failed to secure the cut-off marks pertaining to BCM category, she was not selected. It is the stand of the petitioner that key answers set in respect of Question Nos.52, 67, 71, 64 & 108 are demonstrably https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 of 16 W.P.No.26332 of 2022 and palpably wrong and that therefore, he should have been awarded marks for those questions also.
4. The respondent board filed its counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and inter alia contending that objections were received from the candidates in respect of certain questions that key answers were wrong and an expert body was constituted and based on the opinion of the expert body certain key answers were revised and marks were given to the candidates. Therefore, now, it is not open to the petitioner to raise the same objection before this court as second round.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took this court through the materials submitted during the course of argument in the form of typed set of papers in support of his submission that the answers opted by the petitioner are correct and the key answers are wrong and the petitioner is entitled to get marks for Question Nos.52, 67, 71, 64 & 108.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the learned standing counsel on record for the TRB taking this court through the counter affidavit submitted that questions setters were experts in their respective fields and the objections were referred to a expert body, who were also experts in the field. The expert body after examining the objections https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 of 16 W.P.No.26332 of 2022 submitted its report that answers to certain questions were wrong. When there was an effective mechanism evolved by the TRB to raise objection to key answer, if any, and the objections raised by the candidates were already considered by the expert body, the petitioner cannot raise the same claim once again before this court. Further, according to him, the books relied on by the petitioner to prove the errors were not the materials authorised by the State.
7. This court had called upon the TRB to produce the experts opinion justifying the key answers. Report of the expert body was accordingly produced.
8. This court has considered the rival submissions carefully and gone through the materials on record including the report of the expert body.
9. In the case of Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta [(1983) 4 SCC 309], the Supreme Court has held that it should be presumed that the key answers set by the paper setters are correct, unless it is demonstrably wrong.
10. It is also the settled law that this court cannot conduct itself like an expert and go into the correctness of the key answers set to the questions by the paper setters and affirmed or revised by the expert body based certain concrete materials.
11. In Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. [(2018) 2 SCC 357), the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 of 16 W.P.No.26332 of 2022 Supreme Court has held as under:-
“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.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6 of 16 W.P.No.26332 of 2022
12. In the case of U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh, [(2018) 7 SCC 254], while reitering the law on the subject, the Supreme Court the has held as under:-
12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The constitutional courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur University case [Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309] , the Court recommended a system of:
(1) moderation;
(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions; (3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions.” ..... ..... ..... .....
14. In the present case, we find that all the three questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain textbooks. When there are conflicting views, then the court must https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7 of 16 W.P.No.26332 of 2022 bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts.”
13. In the case of High Court of Tripura v. Tirtha Sarthi Mukherjee and others [(2019) 2 Scale 708], the Supreme Court has has held as under:-
"19. The question however arises whether even if there is no legal right to demand revaluation as of right could there arise circumstances which leaves the Court in any doubt at all. A grave injustice may be occasioned to a writ applicant in certain circumstances. The case may arise where even though there is no provision for revaluation it turns out that despite giving the correct answer no marks are awarded. No doubt this must be confined to a case where there is no dispute about the correctness of the answer. Further, if there is any doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favour of the examining body rather than in favour of the candidate. The wide power under Article 226 may continue to be available even though there is no provision for revaluation in a situation where a candidate despite having given correct answer and about which there cannot be even slightest manner of doubt, he is treated as having given the wrong answer and consequently the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8 of 16 W.P.No.26332 of 2022 candidate is found disentitled to any mark.”
14. Very recently in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan [(2021) 2 SCC 309], after considering a catena of decisions on the scope of judicial review with regard to reevaluation of the answer sheets, the Supreme Court observed and held that the court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate as it had no expertise in the matter and the academic matters are best left to academics.
15. The candidates who took the written examination were given an opportunity to submit their objections, if any, to the tentative key answers published by the TRB through online objection tracker. Based on the objections received from the candidates, an expert body was constituted to go into the correctness of the key answers. According to the TRB, valuation of the answer sheets was done by them based on the opinion of the expert body.
16. The correctness of the Key Answers set to Question Nos.52, 67, 71, 64 & 108 by the TRB are now under challenge.
17. Let this court now examine the challenges to the key answers made in the writ petitions one after the other keeping in mind the principle laid down by the Supreme Court referred to herein above.
18. Insofar as Question Nos.52, 67, 71 are concerned, these questions were admittedly deleted from valuation based on the opinion of the experts and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9 of 16 W.P.No.26332 of 2022 no marks were awarded. Therefore, the challenge of these questions does not merit consideration. Further, this court by order dated 02.11.2022 made in W.P.(MD) No.22129 of 2022 rejected the challenge made by one K.Vinopratha. Accordingly, challenge to Question Nos.52, 67 & 71 are rejected.
19. As far as Question No.64 is concerned, it reads as under:-
Faustus curses_________ for depriving him the joys of heaven.
(A) Mephistophilis (B) Beelzebub (C) Lucifer (D) Devil The tentative key answer is option “C”. According to the petitioner, option “A” is correct. The experts had also opined that option “A” - Mephistophilis to be the correct answer based on the book titled “Christoper Marlowe” Doctor Faustus. Accepting the opinion of the experts, the option to this question has been changed in the final key. Therefore, this challenge is also rejected.
20. Insofar as the last challenge to Question No.108 is concerned, it reads as under:-
According to Allen Tate the meaning of good poetry, “is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10 of 16 W.P.No.26332 of 2022 its _____, the full organized body of all the extension and intention that we can find in it”.
(A) Confusion (B) Stress (C) Tension (D) Depression The key answer is option “A”. According to the petitioner option “C” which he opted is the correct answer. The TRB stick on its stand that option “A” is correct. The experts opined that setters material is sufficient to hold that option “A” to be the correct answer. They relied on the book titled “A Glossry of Literary Terms” by M.H.Abrahams.
21. However, while considering the challenge to this question in W.P.(MD) No.22129 of 2022 (K.Vinopratha v. TRB dated 02.11.2022), a learned Judge of Madurai Bench of this Court by order order dated 02.11.2022 has held as under:-
“15.I called upon the learned standing counsel to make available the basis on which the experts came to the conclusion that the correct alternative is “confusion” and not “tension”. It is too obvious from the record that the experts have arbitrarily taken the stand that the key answer is correct and does not require change. Even the extract enclosed in the sealed cover indicated that tension” is the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11 of 16 W.P.No.26332 of 2022 right answer. “Contemporary Literary Critics” by Elmer Borklund published by Palgrave Macmillan while dealing with Allen Tate reads as follows : “The true poet, on the other hand, “is responsible for the virtue proper to him as a poet, for his special arete for the mastery of a disciplined language which will not shun the full report of the reality conveyed to him by his awareness.” The poet achieves this condition by means of what Tate calls “tension”. the meaning of poetry is its “tension”, the full organized body of all the extension and intention that we can find in it.....” The respondents merely passed on a slim sealed cover.
When I clearly indicated that the material enclosed therein does not support the key answer but rather supports the answer given by the writ petitioner, there was no demurrer. No endeavour was made by the Board to even indicate that their answer could possibly be right. In the counter affidavit also, the accent was on questioning the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the writ petition. The counter affidavit is silent as to how the key answer is correct. Respectfully applying the decision of the Hon'ble Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University case, I hold that the petitioner has demonstrated that the key answer to Question No.108 is manifestly, demonstrably and patently wrong. The court cannot shut its eyes to what is too obvious and apparent. Only an ostrich donning judicial robes will hide its head in the sand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12 of 16 W.P.No.26332 of 2022
16.Here is a case the petitioner is a woman belonging to backward class. Her future is at stake. Her fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India are involved. The paper setters had shown a wrong answer in the key. The experts have arbitrarily refused to correct the same while publishing the final key. I have already given a finding that the experts not only have not placed any material to show that the key answer is correct but even the material passed on to the court shows that the petitioner's answer is correct. The petitioner should therefore be awarded one more mark.
16.Here is a case the petitioner is a woman belonging to backward class. Her future is at stake. Her fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India are involved. The paper setters had shown a wrong answer in the key. The experts have arbitrarily refused to correct the same while publishing the final key. I have already given a finding that the experts not only have not placed any material to show that the key answer is correct but even the material passed on to the court shows that the petitioner's answer is correct. The petitioner should therefore be awarded one more mark.
..... ..... ..... ..... .....
17.I grant relief to the petitioner because she had filed the writ petition on 16.09.2022 itself. On 20.09.2022, I passed an interim order in the presence of the standing https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13 of 16 W.P.No.26332 of 2022 counsel that any appointment made pursuant to the selection list will abide by the outcome of the writ petition. Now that the process is over I will not entertain any further writ petitions even if the petitioners are placed on the same footing. I do not want to open the flood gates. Grant of relief shall remain confined to the petitioner alone.”
22. The present writ petition was filed on 27.09.2022. When this court has already granted relief to a similarly placed candidate, the petitioner who filed the present writ petition promptly is also entitled to be awarded mark for Question No.108.
23. In view of the above discussions, the petitioner is entitled to be awarded mark for Question No.108 and challenge in respect of the other questions is rejected.
In the result, The TRB will award mark to the petitioner for Question No.108 and revise the total mark secured by the petitioner. The right of the petitioner to be appointed as PG Assistant (English) will abide by the said revision. It is made clear that since the selection process has already been over and the interest of the petitioner has been protected by way of interim order of this court, the benefit of this order will enure in favour of the petitioner and the candidates who have approached the court promptly by initiating legal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14 of 16 W.P.No.26332 of 2022 proceedings and the TRB shall not extend the benefit of this order to any of the other candidates.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is closed.
09..10..2023
Index : yes / no
Neutral Citation : yes / no
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
kmk
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner, Directorate of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3.The Chairman, Teacher Recruitment Board, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15 of 16 W.P.No.26332 of 2022 N.SATHISH KUMAR.J., kmk Pre delivery Order in W.P.No.26332 of 2022
09..10..2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16 of 16