Madras High Court
P.K.Selvendran vs The Director Of Government Examination on 5 July, 2016
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.07.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
W.P(MD)No.10881 of 2016
and
W.M.P(MD)No.8426 of 2016
P.K.Selvendran, minor,
Son of A.Ponraj,
represented by his father and natural guardian
Mr.A.Ponraj ..Petitioner
Vs
1.The Director of Government Examination,
(Higher Secondary Examination),
Chennai- 600 006.
2.The Secretary,
Selection Committee for M.B.B.S Course,
No.162, Periyar E.V.R.High Road,
Kilpauk,
Chennai- 600 010.
..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first
respondent herein to award 3.5 marks to the Petitioner(Registration
No.370078) for question Nos. 28,30, 36 and 37 in Zoology subject in the
Higher Secondary Examination conducted in 2015-2016 and consequently to
direct the second respondent to admit the Petitioner in the MBBS Course for
the academic year 2016-2017.
!For Petitioner :Mr.Veerakathiravan
Senior Counsel.
For M/s.C.Jegannathan
For Respondents :Mr.K.Chellapandian
Addl.Advocate General
Assisted by :Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
Special Govt.Pleader for R1
Mr.A.Muthukaruppan
Addl.Govt.Pleader for R2
:ORDER
The Petitioner has focussed the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the First Respondent/The Director of Government Examination(Higher Secondary Examination), Chennai- 600 006 to award 3.5 marks to the Petitioner(Registration No.370078) for question Nos. 28,30, 36 and 37 in Zoology subject in the Higher Secondary Examination conducted in 2015-2016.Further, he has sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the second respondent to admit the Petitioner in the MBBS Course for the academic year 2016-2017.
2.It comes to be known that the minor Petitioner studied in Green Park Matric Higher Secondary School, Bodhupatti at Namakkal for the year 2015-2016 and as per the results published by the First Respondent, he secured 1140/1200 marks.
3.The stand of the Petitioner is that he secured low marks in his favourite subject Biology and in respect of performing well, he was awarded only 195 marks. After the results were published, he submitted an application to have a scanned copy of the answer-sheet and paid a total sum of Rs.1,650/-. He also applied for re-valuation or re-totalling of the Biology Subject Code No.009 alone and paid the necessary fee. He had the benefit of key answer of the Biology paper. Further, on a perusal of the key answer along with question paper, it was found that in Botany, the Petitioner had secured 74 and in Zoology, he had secured 70.50 and there is a shortage of 4.5 marks and after re-valuation, the results were published by the First Respondent by giving one more marks and final mark of the Petitioner in the Biology is 196.
4.The grievance of the Petitioner is that he was not given proper mark for four questions in the Zoology paper and as a result of which, there is a shortage of 3.5 marks in the said subjects, which deprived him from taking part in the selection process of M.B.B.S Course. Further, he belongs to backward class community and cut- off mark for the Backward Class in the professional Course (MBBS Course) is 195.75.
5.The categorical plea of the Petitioner is that on a thorough perusal of the questions key answer and subject books of the Tamil Nadu Government for Zoology, it was found that he was not awarded proper marks for four questions due to the erroneous valuation and as a result of which, he lost 3.5 marks. The four questions for which lesser marks were awarded are question Nos.28,30, 36 and 37. Aggrieved by the non-awarding of 3.5 marks for the aforesaid questions, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
6.The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contends that for the question No.28, no mark was awarded. However, in respect of question No.36, for Heading, no mark was awarded, though the Petitioner had given all five Headings. Further, even after re-valuation, the Petitioner was not awarded the correct marks. In respect of question No.37, 'Pre-caution and First Aid'', initially, one mark was awarded to the Petitioner and in re-valuation, the Petitioner was awarded half a mark. Hence there is shortage of half a mark.
7.At this stage, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner refers to the details of questions and answer and the marks awarded are as under:
''Part-II(Zoology) Section B Q.28, Mention the reasons for immunodeficiency Diseases ? 3 marks The answer written by the Petitioner is ''Immunodeficiency disease may result from defect in one or more compo9unds of immune system. Such defect may arises due to mutation, genetic recombination and other factors. Example for Immunodeficiency diseases are SCID and AIDs.
The first respondent officials awarded only one mark for the said answer out of three marks.
Section C Q.30.Write short notes on two viral diseases in man ? 5 marks The answer written by the Petitioner is:
Viral diseases in man:
Cancer and diseases:
Virus have been identified as one of the causative agents for cancer. Such tumor inducing viruses are called oncogenic Diseases. Adeno Virus, Polioma Virus, Simon Viruses(4) are the Oncogenic DNA Viruses. RNA Sargoma is the Ongoni RNA Virus(Eg.Rous Sarcoma)
2.Rabies and Diseases:
Rabies Virus belongs to Rhobdo Virus family. It is the parasite of domestic and wild animals. The transmission to human accuse through the bite of an ''infected animal dogs, cats, rats are the mammalian animals sources for rabies.
The symptom of rabies in man are high fever, head ache, alternate excitement and depression, muscular sperms, in throat and chest, hydrophobia, etc the incubation time in human is usually 3 to 8 weeks. In untreated it causes 100 percent mostulity.
Rabies Vaccine have been discovered in 1980 and it provide immunity against the rabies virus.
3.Hepatitis - B-Virus Hepatitis B is an envelope virus with double stranded DNA. It causes Jaundice and hepatic Carcinoma. It is deadly and more infectious than AIDs. The vaccine is called HBV-Ag(Australian Antigen) obtained from the blood vacuum of apparently healthy carrier.
The first respondent officials awarded only 4 + marks out of 5 marks for the said answers.
As per their key answer the Petitioner has correctly answered to the above question. Hence the Officials ought to have awarded full 5 marks. There is a shortage of + marks in respect of the above said question. Section D Q.36, Write an essay on the environmental impacts of energy sources? The answer written by the Petitioner is :
Environmental inputs on energy sources
1.Thermal Power Plant:
The pollution caused by these plants in terms of:
1.Fly ash
2.Co2
3.Nos
4.So2
5.Toxic substances
2.Hydel Power Plant
1.The implementation of Hydel Power Plant need the replacement of human from the site of implementation.
2.This may cause considerable human problem and may cause considerable delay in the implementation of plant and escalation of the costs.
3.The implementation of plant may also cause the effect to the eco-system of the locating site.
3.Solar Energy
1.The large area for implementation of solar energy must be selected without eliminating the forest cover.
2.Cadmium used in producing Solar Cells may be a carcinogen and a pollutant.
3.Carbon-dioxide released during the production of silicon from Silica may cause global warning and increase green house effect.
4.Silica dust in also a possible occupational hazard.
4.Nuclear Power Plant:
1.Thermal effluents from the Nuclear Power Plant may adversely affect the aquatic eco-system.
2.commissioning of boiling waiter power reactor(BWPR) may cause the accumulation long lived radio nuclides in the water.
3.Environmentalists argue that the thermal radiation from nuclear power plant can cause many effects to eco-system.
4.Radioactive materials cannot be buried without the risk of polluting land, soil and ground water.
5.Fossile Fuels:
1.The burning of fossile fuels like coal, petroleum can cause the release of CO2 which increases global warning.
2.They also releases toxic cases which causes air pollution.
3.They may also cause human diseases like lung disorders, Asthma and ingestion etc.
4.The gases like No2, SO2, may cause acid.
5.The increasing level of Green house cases due to burning of fossile fuels may cause global warning.
The first respondent officials awarded only 9 marks oujt of 10 marks for the said answers
8.The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in respect of question No.30, the Petitioner was awarded with half a mark in re- valuation and as such, re-valuation does not arise. However, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner had correctly answered the three questions in issue and officials of the Respondents ought to have given full marks. In short, due to awarding of one mark less in the three questions, the Petitioner could not secure the cut-off marks fixed by the Second Respondent. Therefore, a vehement argument is projected on the side of the Petitioner that if the authorities had awarded one mark each for the aforesaid three questions, the Petitioner would be eligible for admission to MBBS Course seat based on the cut-off marks. As such, the real grievance of the Petitioner is that he was not awarded full marks for the answers written by him.
9.Added further, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contends that for compelling reasons and apparent infirmity in re-valuation, the Court of Law can step in as regards the matter of valuation of answer papers and in support of the same, he relies on the decision of Honourable Supreme Court between President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and another .vs. D.Suvankar and another reported in (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 603, wherein, it is observed as under:
''8.It has to be ensured that the examiners who make the evaluation of answer papers are really equipped for the job. The paramount consideration in such cases is the ability of the examiner. The Board has bounden duty to select such persons as examiners who have the capacity, capability to make evaluation and they should really be equipped for the job. Otherwise, the very purpose of evaluation of answer papers would be frustrated. Nothing should be left to show even an apprehension about lack of fair assessment. It is true that evaluation of two persons cannot be equal on golden scales, but wide variation would affect credibility of the system of evaluation. If for the same answer one candidate gets higher marks than another that would be arbitrary. As indicated above, the scope for interference in matters of evaluation of answer papers is very limited. For compelling reasons and apparent infirmity in evaluation, the Court step in. Care should be taken to see that the examiners who have been appointed for a particular subject belong to the same faculty. It would be a mockery of the system of evaluation if a teacher belonging to Arts stream is asked to evaluate answer papers of Science stream. It may be that a teacher had Physics, Chemistry or Biology at the intermediate level., but at graduation stage he had special paper in Zoology. To ask such a teacher to evaluate Botany paper would not be proper. Similarly in the case of a teacher having Mathematics at intermediate level while he took his higher studies in Physics, or Chemistry, or Botany at the graduation level evaluation of answer paper of Mathematics by him would not be proper. May be that he has working knowledge of the subject. That would rule out the chance of variation or improper evaluation. Board authorities should ensure that anomalous situations as pointed out above do not occur. Additional Steps should be taken for assessing the capacity of a teacher before he is appointed as an examiner. For this purpose, the Board may constitute a body of experts to interview the persons who intend to be appointed as examiners. This process is certainly time consuming but it would further the ends for which the examinations are held. The Chief Examiner is supposed to act as a safety valve in the matter of proper assessment.
9.One thing which cannot be lost sight of is the marginal difference of marks which decide the placement of candidates in the merit list.''
10.The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner cites a Division Bench Judgement of this Court between State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, State Board of School Examination, Chennai and others .vs.J.Amirtha, represented by her natural guardian and father V.S.Jeyakumar reported in (2103) 6 MLJ 665, wherein, at para 9 and 10, it has been observed as follows:
''9.This case is a classic example as to how answer papers of the students are being valued casually, without any responsibility, by the Examiners. Even during revaluation, the Examiners have not applied their mind and not awarded correct marks to Question Nos.57, 65(a) and 68(a). Only during the second re-valuation ordered at the instance of this Court, correct marks were awarded to the respondent. In-spite of the mistake committed by their own department, the appellants are treating the respondent with hostility and not giving allotment order for joining in the First year MBBS Course in Government Medical College, Sivagangai, where she is eligible to be admitted as per the marks obtained by her.
10.In the decision reported in President Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and Another .vs.D.Suvankar and another :LNIND 2006 SC 970, the Supreme Court explained the importance of evaluation of answer papers by Examiners. In paragraphs 6 and 8 it is held thus:
6.Award of marks by an examiner is to be fair, and considering the fact that revaluation is not permissible under the statute, the examiner has to be careful, cautious and has a duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. No element of chance or luck should be introduced. An examination is a stepping stone on career advancement of a student. Absence of a provision for re-valuation cannot be a shield for the examiner to arbitrarily evaluate the answer script. That would be against the very concept for which re-valuation is impermissible.
........''
11.That apart, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court between H.P.Public Service Commission .vs. Mukesh Thakur and another reported in (2010) 5 MLJ 746(SC)at Special Page No.749, wherein, in para 12 it is observed as follows:
''12.In the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case, three basic questions arise for consideration of this Court:
(i)As to whether it is permissible for the Court to take the task of Examiner/Selection Board upon itself and examine discrepancies and inconsistencies in the questions paper and valuation thereof.
(ii)Whether Court has the power to pass a general order restraining the persons aggrieved to approach the Court by filing a writ petition on any ground and depriving them from their constitutional rights to approach the Court, particularly, when some other candidates had secured the same marks I.e., 89 and stood qualified for being called for interview but could not approach the Court.
(iii)Whether in the absence of any statutory provision for revaluation, the Court could direct for revaluation.''
12.Also, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner refers to the Judgement of this Court made in W.A(MD)No.719 of 2015, dated 22.4.2016 between P.Muthalagan vs. The Secretary, State Board of School Examination(Sec), Tamil Nadu and another, wherein, at para 6 to 9, it has been observed as follows:
''6.It is seen that the appellant's daughter secured 488 marks and she should be a brilliant student. Even according to the learned Single Judge, in paragraph 5 of the order, to some of the questions, lesser marks were awarded. Having found that lesser marks were awarded, the learned Single Judge should not have observed that the awarding of lesser marks would not entitle the appellant's daughter to get full marks. When a finding had been reached that there was awarding of lesser marks to the right answers, revaluation should have been ordered. No doubt there is no scheme available for revaluation and only re-totalling is available. Awarding of lesser marks for right answer is nothing but arbitrary valuation and lacks fair valuation.
7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and another .vs. D.Suvankar and another reported in (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 603, it has been held that the absence of a provision for revaluation cannot be a shield for the Examiner to arbitrarily value the answer sheet and for compelling reasons, the Court can step in and pass appropriate orders. Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the said judgement are extracted as follows:
6.Award of marks by an examiner is to be fair, and considering the fact that revaluation is not permissible under the statute, the examiner has to be careful, cautious and has a duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. No element of chance or luck should be introduced. An examination is a stepping stone on career advancement of a student. Absence of a provision for re-valuation cannot be a shield for the examiner to arbitrarily evaluate the answer script. That would be against the very concept for which re-valuation is impermissible.
''8.It has to be ensured that the examiners who make the evaluation of answer papers are really equipped for the job. The paramount consideration in such cases is the ability of the examiner. The Board has bounden duty to select such persons as examiners who have the capacity, capability to make evaluation and they should really be equipped for the job. Otherwise, the very purpose of evaluation of answer papers would be frustrated. Nothing should be left to show even an apprehension about lack of fair assessment. It is true that evaluation of two persons cannot be equal on golden scales, but wide variation would affect credibility of the system of evaluation. If for the same answer one candidate gets higher marks than another that would be arbitrary. As indicated above, the scope for interference in matters of evaluation of answer papers is very limited. For compelling reasons and apparent infirmity in evaluation, the Court step in. Care should be taken to see that the examiners who have been appointed for a particular subject belong to the same faculty. It would be a mockery of the system of evaluation if a teacher belonging to Arts stream is asked to evaluate answer papers of Science stream. It may be that a teacher had Physics, Chemistry or Biology at the intermediate level., but at graduation stage he had special paper in Zoology. To ask such a teacher to evaluate Botany paper would not be proper. Similarly in the case of a teacher having Mathematics at intermediate level while he took his higher studies in Physics, or Chemistry, or Botany at the graduation level evaluation of answer paper of Mathematics by him would not be proper. May be that he has working knowledge of the subject. That would rule out the chance of variation or improper evaluation. Board authorities should ensure that anomalous situations as pointed out above do not occur. Additional Steps should be taken for assessing the capacity of a teacher before he is appointed as an examiner. For this purpose, the Board may constitute a body of experts to interview the persons who intend to be appointed as examiners. This process is certainly time consuming but it would further the ends for which the examinations are held. The Chief Examiner is supposed to act as a safety valve in the matter of proper assessment.
9.Therefore it is appropriate to direct the respondents to revalue the answer sheet of Tamil Second Paper of the appellant's daughter. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. However, it is made clear that this order should not be shown as a precedent and only taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, the above order is passed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.''
13.The Pith and substance of the contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that besides the Petitioner being a meritorious student and considering the fact that he was not given full marks for the answers written by him in respect of three questions(barring question No.30) because of the compelling reasons and apparent infirmity in the valuation, the Petitioner is entitled for second re-valuation for awarding correct marks. Also, it is reported on behalf of the Petitioner that to do a 'complete justice' to a litigant, Writ is the appropriate remedy.
14.Per contra, the Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondents submits that there is no error in re-valuation and the whole answer sheet including question Nos.28,30, 36 and 37 were valued properly during the valuation as well as in revaluation.
15.At this juncture, the Learned Additional Advocate General takes a stand that for question No.28-''Reasons for Immunodeficiency Diseases, the answer is as under:
''1.Immunodeficiency Diseases result from a defect in one or more components of the innate or adaptive immunity ? 1 mark.
2.Immunodeficiency May result from Gene Mutations, infections, Malnutrition, accidents ? 2 marks.'' In this connection, it is represented on behalf of the Respondents that since the answer was not precisely correct, the Examiner had awarded one mark as against thee marks. Indeed, for Gene Mutations, Infections, mal-nutrition and accidents, the Petitioner wrote as Mutation genetic recombination and other factors''. In reality, the text-book relied on by the Petitioner at Page 69 of the Writ Petition typed-set support the key answer rather than the case of the Petitioner. As such, it is submitted on behalf of the Respondents that there is no infirmity in the valuation.
16.Coming to the aspect of question No.30, it is the plea of the Respondents that the candidate expected to write any two viral diseases with explanation. As a matter of fact, each explanation carried 2.5 marks. In the instant case, the candidate wrote about ''Rabies''for which he was awarded 2.5 marks. Further, the other viral diseases (cancer) written by the candidate was not accurately correct and he had left out Epstein Barr Virus(EBV)(a Herpes Virus). He was awarded with two marks for 2.5 marks. However, during re-valuation he was awarded with full marks and therefore there is no error in revaluation. Inasmuch as the candidate was awarded half a mark in re-valuation insofar as the question No.30 was concerned, re- valuation in this regard does not arise.
17.Furthermore, on behalf of the Respondents, it is stated that for question No.36, the key answer reads as under:
''The environmental impacts of energy sources
1.Thermal Power-Explanation - 1 mark
2.Hydel Power Explanation - 2 marks
3.Nuclear Power-Explanation - 3 marks
4.Solar Energy-Explanation - 2 marks
5.Fossil Fuels-Explanation - 2 marks.
18.It is the contention of the Respondents that the candidate was awarded with full marks in respect of S.Nos.1,2,4 and 5. However, S.No.3 viz Nuclear Power, he was awarded with two marks as against three marks. In fact, he wrote four points for which two marks were awarded. As a matter of fact, the candidate's answer was not accurate and which require more explanation, for which one mark was reduced and besides that the answer for which in the text-book enclosed at Page No.72 of typed-set reveals the same.
19.The Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondents submits that the key answer for question NO.37 is as under:
''Bacterial Diseases -Any Three - 1 + Marks Viral Diseases-Any Three - 1 + Marks Milk Fever-Explanation - 1 + Marks Symptoms -1 Mark Precaution and first aid -1 + Marks Constipation Explanation -1 Mark Precaution and first aid - 2 Marks The candidate was awarded full marks for all the sub-headings except precaution and first aid and in this caption, he was awarded one mark as against two marks, because of the reason that the answer was not accurate as seen from the text-book annexed at Page No.74 of the typed-set of papers in the Writ Petition. During re-valuation, he was awarded half a mark and thus he was awarded with 9 + marks as against 10 marks.
20.The Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondents emphatically contends that there is no infirmity in the valuation in the subject-matter in issue and as per rules and procedures, after obtaining the scanned copy of the answer sheet, fees for revaluation, re-valuation is done once with the aid of separate Examiner and the said mark put on re-valuation is final one. Moreover, the candidate cannot seek anymore re-valuation. In short, the stand of the Respondents is that there is no provision for re- valuation as sought for by the Petitioner and that the Writ Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner is devoid of merits.
21.The Learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents refers to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court between H.P .Public Service Commission .vs. Mukesh Thakur and another reported in (2010) 5 ML 746(SC), wherein it is held as under:
''The Court cannot take upon itself the task of the Statutory Authorities and in the absence of any statutory provision for revaluation, the Court should not generally direct revaluation.''
22.The Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondents refers to the aforesaid judgement at Page 751, wherein, at Para 23 and 24, it is observed as follows:
''23.Situation will be entirely different where the Court deals with the issue of admission in mid-academic session. This Court has time and again said that it is not permissible for the Courts to issue direction for admission in mid-academic session. The reason for it has been that admission to a student at a belated stage disturbs other students, who have already been pursuing the course and such a student would not be able to complete the required attendance in theory as well as in practical classes. Quality of education cannot be compromised. The students taking admission at a belated stage may not be able to complete the courses in the limited period. In this connection, reference may be made to the decisions of this Court in Dr.Pramod Kumar Joshi .vs.Medical Council of India and others, (1991) 2 SCC 179: State of Uttar Pradesh and others .vs. Dr.Anupam Gupta etc., AIR 1992 SC 932; Stage of Punjab and others .vs. Reunka Singla and others, AIR 1994 SC 595 : (1994) 1 SCC 175; Medical Council of India .vs.Madhu Singh and others, AIR 2002 SC 3230 ; (2002) 7 SCC 258;and Mridul Dhar(Minor) and Another .vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2005 SC 666:(2005) 2 SCC 65.
24.The issue of re-valuation of the answer book is no more res-integra.
This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another .vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth etc. AIR 1984 SC 1543 :(1984) 4 SCC 27, wherein this Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for revaluation,l a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/re-valuation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under:
''..............It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act......The Court cannot sit in judgement over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any draw-backs in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act.....''.
23.Also, in the aforesaid decision, at page No.752, at Para 27, it is observed as follows:
'27.Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in absence of any provision under the Statute or Statutory Rules/Regulations, the Court should not generally direct re-valuation.''
24.This Court has given its anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on the side of the Petitioner and the Respondents and noticed their contentions.
25.At this stage, it may not be out of place for this Court to make a significant mention that in G.O.(Ms) No.77 of School Education (V1) Department, dated 7.5.2001 of the Government of Tamil Nadu, in condition No.10, it is stated that the decision/mark notified under re-valuation is final and if any application for 'Review' is sought, the same cannot be accepted.
26.On a careful consideration of respective contentions and also this Court taking note of the attendant facts and circumstances of the present case, which float on the surface is of the considered view that there is no Rule/Regulation/Procedure to order for Second Re-valuation/Review of Zoology paper as sought for by the Petitioner in the Writ Petition and also that this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that there is no infirmity in the valuation already made. Suffice it for this Court to point out that the Petitioner in the instant case has not made out any compelling reason/reasons for ordering for Second Re-valuation in Zoology paper as prayed for by the Petitioner, in the Writ Petition. Consequently, the Writ Petition fails.
27.In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.
To
1.The Director of Government Examination, (Higher Secondary Examination), Chennai- 600 006.
2.The Secretary, Selection Committee for M.B.B.S Course, No.162, Periyar E.V.R.High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai- 600 010. .