Madras High Court
R.Shobana vs The Chairman on 7 September, 2018
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.09.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.Nos.22699, 25846, 26502 to 26504, 27400, 27442, 27936, 27954 & 27955, 28055 of 2017 and 3223 of 2014 and W.M.P.Nos.23797, 27286 & 27287, 28219 to 28224, 29300 & 29301, 29329 & 29330, 29976 & 29977, 30001 to 30004, 30127 of 2017 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.P.No.3223 of 2014 W.P.No.22699 of 2017 R.Shobana ..Petitioner Versus 1.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, D.P.I., Chennai 600 006. 2.The Secretary, School Education Department, Govt.of Tamil Nadu, St.George Fort, Chennai 600 009. ..Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to pass an appropriate order on petitioner's representation / Claims along with authoritative proofs sent on 24.07.2017 and award the marks on the basis of petitioner's representation / Claims and allow the petitioner to participate in the Certificate Verification vide 1st respondent's Notification No.3/2017 dated 09.05.2017. For Petitioners (in W.P.No.22699 of 2017) : Mr.T.P.Sekar (in W.P.Nos.25846, 27936, 27954 & 27955 of 2017) : Mr.K.Thenrajan (in W.P.Nos.26502,26503, 26504, 27400, 27442 of 2017) : M/s.Ajmal Associates for M/s.S.Nambi Arooran (in W.P.No.28055 of 2017) : Mr.K.Myilsamy (in W.P.No.3223 of 2014) : M/s.B.V.Sai Lakshmi For Respondents (in all W.Ps) : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, Government Advocate C O M M O N O R D E R
The relief sought for in these writ petitions are for a direction to direct the respondents to pass an appropriate order on the representations submitted by the respective petitioners in respect of awarding of marks in respect of certain objectionable questions and answers and allow the petitioners to participate in the certificate verification.
2.All the writ petitioners had participated in the process of recruitment for selection to the posts of Post Graduate Assistants in the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Service. It is not disputed that all the writ petitioners had participated in the process of selection. After participating in the written examinations, the petitioners found that certain questions and answers were not matching or defective and they could not able to answer the questions properly. Thus, the writ petitioners were constrained to submit a representation to the competent authorities to consider their representations and award marks in respect of all those objectionable questions or answers.
3.The grievance of the writ petitioners are that they have categorically specified the defective and objectionable questions and answers in their representations, the same had not been considered by the respondents, which resulted in denial of selection to all these writ petitioners. In other words, the petitioners were deprived of their right of selection on account of the errors occurred in the questions and answers. Thus, the petitioners have chosen to prefer the present writ petitions for a direction to consider the representation in respect of their claims for award of marks for the defective and erroneous questions and answers.
4.The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents elaborately contended that the representations of the respective writ petitioners were forwarded to the Expert Committee constituted for the purpose of resolving the issues in relation to the defective questions and answers. The Expert Committee constituted for the purpose of considering the issues, consists of two members namely, Dr.S.Chidambaravinagagam, Associate Professor of Presidency College, Chennai 5 and Dr.S.Arul Antony, Associate Professor of Presidency College, Chennai 5.
5.The Expert Committee constituted had gone into the allegations raised by the writ petitioners and furnished their reports in detail, including the correct answers and the questions in this regard. The copy of the report is enclosed in the typed set of papers filed by the respondents and the same contains the reference notes and all other particulars, stating that the Expert Committee has elaborately considered all the possible answers and submitted their report in respect of the issues raised by the petitioners in this regard.
6.Relying on the said report, the learned Government Advocate contended that based on the report submitted by the Expert Committee, a revised evaluations were done in respect of all these writ petitioners and wherever applicable, additional marks were awarded and accordingly, the final list of selection was published. The representations submitted by the writ petitioners were considered based on the report of the Expert Committee, the re-evaluations were done by the authorities competent and the eligible candidates were awarded with marks and thereafter, the final selection list was prepared and published. Subsequently, based on the final selection list, appointments were also provided to all the selected candidates and they have joined in service.
7.In paragraph 6 onwards in the counter affidavit, the details of the objectionable and defective questions and the answers arrived were elaborately deal with by the respondents, which all are extracted hereunder:
5. It is respectfully submitted that the 1st Respondent Board published the tentative key answers for all subjects on the Boards Website on 19.07.2017 and advised the candidates to submit the representations regarding objections, if any, to the tentative key answers with relevant proof of authority on or before 23.07.2017.
6. It is respectfully submitted that a committee of Subject Experts with academic excellence examined the representations received from the candidates, discussed the objections on the basis of authoritative texts and framed final key answers. After thorough scrutiny, final and revised key answers were prepared by the Subject Experts and the Optical Mark Reader Answers sheets of all the candidates were evaluated on the basis of the final and revised key answers. Subsequently the 1st Respondent Board published the provisional result of the written competitive examination on 11.08.2017.
7. It is submitted that the petitioner avers that Final key answers published by the Teachers Recruitment Board is not correct, in respect of Question Nos., Book-let Series as detailed below:-
Question No. of A Series Question No. of D Series Key answer of the Petitioner Tentative Key Final key 67 3 B D D 100 12 A B B 36 20 B/C B B 69 21 D A A 26 25 B D D 3 38 B B B 91 39 A C C 84 66 B A A 53 70 None A A 10 77 B D D 46 78 A/B A A 16 86 A C C 39 99 A B B 47 101 B C C 19 102 A D D 30 110 C A A 140 121 C D D 136 135 A B B 139 140 A D D There is no change in the tentative keys as well as in the final key and for the Questions 3, 12, 20, 21, 25, 38, 39, 66, 70, 77, 78, 86, 99, 101, 102, 110, 121, 135 and 140 in series D the subject experts have furnished their opinion as follows:- Sl. No Question Nos Questions
1. 3
2. 12
3. 20
4. 21
5. 25
6. 38
7. 39
8. 66
9. 70
10. 77
11. 78
12. 86
13. 99
14. 101
15. 102
16. 110
17. 121
--------used the term competence motivation to describe the childs intrinsic need to deal with the environment.
(A)McClelland (B)Carl Rogers (C)Abraham Maslow (D)Robert White
18. 135 In a Mathematics activity session, because of the specificity of the problems, the student response are limited; this is --------------
(A)Operant conditioning (B)Stimulus discrimination (C)Shaping (D)Chaining
19. 140 Who among the following is referred to as the father of experimental study of learning?
(A)E.L.Thorndike (B)John Watson (C)Wilhelm Wundt (D)Ebbinghaus Question No. 3 Petitioner Claim Option B Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation Candidates claim is based on frequency distribution. But the question asked is for probability distribution, and not frequency distribution. Candidates references are not applicable here. Hence, the option D is correct answer.
Evidence PROBABILITY MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS, MARET FISZ, 62-65 Question No. 12 Petitioner Claim Option A Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation The question asked is to find the quotient field, which is basically a field. But the candidates claim is not at all a field. References cited by the candidate is misinterpreted by the candidate herself. Hence, the option B is correct answer.
Evidence SECOND EDITION TOPICS IN ALGEBRA, I.N. HERSTEIN, 140 Question No. 20 Petitioner Claim Option B/C Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation In the formula r=1 bxy x byx the sign is to be taken as follows:-
If the regression coefficients are positive, r is positive.
If the regression coefficients are negative, r is negative.
Here, both the coefficients are negative.
Hence, Option B is correct answer.
Evidence FUNDAMENTALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICAL, S.C. GUPTA, V.K.KAPOOR, 11.5 11.6 Question No. 21 Petitioner Claim Option D Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation On a closed interval, for any rational number, if a continuous function assumes the value 0, then it attains the value 0 throughout the interval. The candidates evidence does not pertain to continuous function and are irrelevant to the question asked. Hence, the option A is correct answer. Evidence MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS SECOND EDITION, T.S. BHANU MURTHY, 97 Question No. 25 Petitioner Claim Option B Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation The candidates evidence pertain to conformal mapping properties whereas, the question is on indirectly conformal mapping. Also the candidate has misinterpreted the properties listed in her reference. Hence, the option D is correct answer. Evidence COMPLEX ANALLYSIS, LARS V.AHLFORS, 74 Question No. 38 Petitioner Claim Option D Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation Candidate has claimed the facts for removable singularities. The question is related to irremovable discontinuities. The evidence produced by the candidate is not exhaustive. Hence, the option B is correct answer. Evidence MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS: SECOND EDITION, T.S. BHANU MURTHY, 93, 94 & METHODS OF REAL ANALYSIS, RICHARD R. GOLDBERG, 113 Question No. 39 Petitioner Claim Option A Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation Candidates evidence gives only the formula and not the condition for maximality. The evidence by candidate is not appropriate. Hence, the option C is correct answer. Evidence FUNDAMENTALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS, S.C. GUPTA, V.K.KAPOOR, 10.40 Question No. 66 Petitioner Claim Option D Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation The candidate has misunderstood the concept of homomorphism and isomorphism. Implicitly, every isomorphism is a homomorphism. Hence, the option A is correct answer. Evidence SECOND EDITION TOPICS IN ALGEBRA, I.N. HERSTEIN, 55 Question No.70 Petitioner Claim Option None Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation The evidences produced by the candidate are not relevant to the question. Hence, the option A is correct answer. Evidence SECOND EDITION TOPICS IN ALGEBRA, I.N. HERSTEIN, 36 Question No. 77 Petitioner Claim Option B Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation The question relates to determining the probability of non-occurrence of n events, whereas, the candidate has interpreted the probability for the nth event, which is not correct. Hence, the option D is correct answer. Evidence FUNDAMENTALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS, S.C. GUPTA, V.K.KAPOOR, 3.50 3.51 Question No. 78 Petitioner Claim Option A/B Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation The correlation coefficient value always lies between -1 and 1. The candidate claim (option B) the value exceeds 1, which is not possible. Hence, the option A is correct answer. Evidence FUNDAMENTALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS, S.C.GUPTA, V.K.KAPOOR, 11.10 Question No. 86 Petitioner Claim Option A Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation The candidate has misinterpreted the definition of irreducibility, proper evidence relevant to the question is produced, but the interpretation by the candidate is wrong. Hence, the option C is correct answer. Evidence SECOND EDITION: TOPICS IN ALGEBRA, I.N.HERSTEIN, 160 Question No. 99 Petitioner Claim Option A Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation Evidence produced by the candidate is for linear functionals, whereas the question is related to annihilators, properties of annihilators are not applied by the candidate at all. Hence, the option B is correct answer. Evidence EXPERT ANSWER PAPER Question No. 101 Petitioner Claim Option B Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation In the formula r(ax+b, cy+d) = r(x,y), (a,c?0), depending on the values of a and c, the sign + or has to be considered accordingly. If a and c are of opposite signs, then =-1. Hence, the option C is correct answer. Evidence FUNDAMENTALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS S.C.GUPTA, V.K.KAPOOR, 10.4 Question No. 102 Petitioner Claim Option A Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation The candidate has computed the norm of an element but not, the operator. Hence, the option D is correct answer. Evidence BEGINNING FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS, KAREN SAXE, 115 Question No. 110 Petitioner Claim Option C Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation By the definition of uncountable set, only option A is uncountable and the remaining option are all countable. Hence, the option A is correct answer.
Evidence MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS SECOND EDITION, T.S.BHANU MURTHY, 39, 43, 45 Question No. 121 Petitioner Claim Option C Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation Robert White(1959) uses the term competence motivation to describe the childs intrinsic need to deal with the environment Hence option D is correct.
Evidence The Psychology of Learning and Instruction P.De CECCO, WILLIAMM R.CRAWFORD.Question No. 135
Petitioner Claim Option A Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation Because of the specificity of the problems, the student responses are limited(stimulus discrimination. The teachers has made available on her desk the answers to each problem to that the students may check their answers as they go(reinforcement and immediacy is desired). Hence option B is correct.
Evidence School Learning and Instruction - HERSHEL D. THORNBURG.Question No. 140
Petitioner Claim Option A Subject Expert Committees views for accepting / rejecting of candidates representation Ebbinghaus, the father of the experimental study of learning, produced evidence that indicated how quickly we forget what weve just learned (see page 213). Hence option D is correct.
Evidence Educational Psychology Norman A.Sprinthall, Richard C.Sprinthall.
8. It is submitted that it is clearly stated in the notification that objections if any has to be submitted within the stipulated time with authenticated text books. Guides, notes, printout of unauthenticated material are not accepted.
9. It is submitted that the petitioner has not furnished any representation with authenticated proof as mentioned in the notification. As the evaluation of the Optical Mark Reader Answer Sheets of the candidates including that of the Petitioner was done with the revised and final key answers, the claim of the Petitioner for revaluation of the answer script has no legal justification. Consequently, the Petitioner cannot have any further grievance as against the 1st Respondent Board.
10. It is respectfully submitted that even a cursory glance at the opinions given by the Subject Experts and the authoritative proof on which such opinions were formed which are filed in the type set would evidently show that the Petitioner has not demonstrably proved the key answers of the 2nd Respondent Board to be wrong. It is pertinent to cite the finding of the Honble Supreme Court in Kanpur University Vs- Samir Gupta reported in A.I.R. 1983 SC 1230 in paras 16 & 17:
We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. (Para 16) If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer.(Para 17)
11. It is respectfully submitted that the Writ Petition is totally misconceived. The Petitioner chose to mislead this Honble Court with legally unsustainable averments claiming that her answers are correct. It is pertinent to cite the ruling of the Division Bench of this Honble Court in W.A.Nos.1097 and 1099 of 2014 dated 08.09.2014. The Honble Division Bench held in para 6 of the above said Order that it is settled law that while exercising the discretionary and extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot act like an expert body, by replacing the assessment made by experts. Further the Division Bench of this Honble Court in the Order dated 12.08.2014 in W.A.No.1074 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 categorically held that the appellant cannot seek as a matter of right that the answers given by him will have to be construed as correct. The appellant could not produce any contra material to the satisfaction of the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has also taken into consideration of the relevant material. The appellant was not able to demonstrate that the key answers pertaining to question Nos.31 and 86 were wrong. We do not find any merit in this appeal.
8.Relying on the counter affidavit, the learned Government Advocate further contended that the re-evaluations were done in the cases of the writ petitioners by considering their representations, and appropriate marks were awarded based on the report submitted by the Expert Committee in this regard. Thus, the grievance of the writ petitioners were redressed and in respect of selection, the petitioners have no locus standi in view of the fact that the selections are made based on the cut-off marks secured by the candidates and by following the rules and reservation. If at all, any of the representations are not considered by the authorities, the respondents are bound to consider such representations, take a decision and pass orders without any further delay.
9.With these directions, all these writ petitions stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07.09.2018 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking order kak To
1.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, D.P.I., Chennai 600 006.
2.The Secretary, School Education Department, Govt.of Tamil Nadu, St.George Fort, Chennai 600 009.
and others.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
kak W.P.Nos.22699, 25846, 26502 to 26504, 27400, 27442, 27936, 27954 & 27955, 28055 of 2017 and 3223 2014 07.09.2018