Madras High Court
R.Chithra vs The Teachers Recruitment Board on 12 April, 2018
Author: Huluvadi G. Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh, M.Dhandapani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.4.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.A.Nos.382, 385, 386 and 387 of 2017 and C.M.P.Nos.5829, 5921, 5923 and 5924 of 2017 R.Chithra Appellant in W.A.No.382/2017 S.Jayalakshmi Appellant in W.A.No.385/2017 A.Padmavathi Appellant in W.A.No.386/2017 S.Arivazhahan Appellant in W.A.No.387/2017 Versus 1. The Teachers Recruitment Board, rep. by its Chairman, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai 600 006. R1 in WA 382, 386, 387 and Sole respondent in WA 385/2017 2. The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006. R2 in WA 382, 386 and 387/2017 Prayer: Writ Appeals filed filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 25.10.2016 passed in W.P.Nos.3657, 4682, 4135 and 7456 of 2015 on the file of this court. For appellants : Mr.T.Sellapandian for Mr.P.Ganesan For respondents : Mr.Mani Shankar, AAG assisted by Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, Special Government Pleader COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was made by M.DHANDAPANI, J.) The intra-court appeals are filed by the writ petitioners challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions.
2. Brief facts of the cases is as follows:-
The writ petitioners filed writ petitions seeking a mandamus to direct the respondent-Teacher Recruitment Board to direct one mark to the writ petitioners in the examination conducted on 10.1.2015 for question No.46 of 'D' series Booklet/question No.66 of 'B' series Booklet in the Tamil Subject and consequently, direct the respondent to appoint the writ petitioners to the post of P.G. Assistant (Tamil) for the selection conducted by the respondent vide Notification dated 7.1.2014. The question in issue is extracted hereunder:-
",sptuy; bka;g;ghl;od; tUj;jk; vd;w bghUs; czh;j;Jk; cl;fUj;J ? (A) mr;rk; (B ) bray; (C) Kaw;rp (D) Jd;gk;"
3. It appears that the writ petitioners had opted the answer 'D'. The tentative key also revealed the answer 'D' as the correct one, however, later, in the final key, it has been declared that 'C' is the correct answer. Prior to that, it appears that the appellants/writ petitioners had secured 96 marks which was the cut off marks for getting selection whereas, on changing the key answer, one mark is reduced from the marks secured by them which resulted in filing of the writ petitions.
4. The learned Single Judge, on appreciating the expert's opinion to the effect that the word "tUj;jk;" though has got a colloquial meaning "Jd;gk;", the usage of such word in the poem contained in the question in dispute refers to the meaning "Kaw;rp", dismissed the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that had there been no option for the answer as "Jd;gk;", definitely, the candidates would not have opted for the same, and it creates a confusion among the candidates, therefore, in such a situation, the writ petitioners ought to have been given one mark for the answer opted by them.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that after careful scrutiny of the materials, the experts have stated that though the general meaning for the word "tUj;jk;" is "Jd;gk;", their opinion based on "bjhy;fhg;gpa bghUsjpfhuk;" the word "tUj;jk;" implies the meaning "Kaw;rp" and based on such opinion, they modified the final key answer as option 'C'.
7. In the present scenario, the case of the writ petitioners has to be decided only on arriving at the conclusion as to whether the word "tUj;jk;" used in the poem contained in question in dispute refers to "Jd;gk;" or "Kaw;rp". The issue relates to expertise in linguistic aspect. No doubt, the court has vast powers in taking judicial view, whereas, in case of issues where expertise is required, the court has no other option except to go by the expert's opinion in the field. The learned Single Judge has also adopted the same approach. By relying the ratio laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in KANPUR UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS v. SAMIR GUPTA AND OTHERS (1983 4 SCC 309), the learned Single Judge has also observed that the writ petitioners were not able to demonstrate that the final key answer is wrong and the court has got powers to interfere with the same only if the key answer is demonstratably wrong.
8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the writ appeals. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed, confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
(H.G.R.,J.)(M.D.I.,J.) 12.4.2018.
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No ssk.
To:
1. The Teachers Recruitment Board, rep. by its Chairman, 4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
2. The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J.
AND M.DHANDAPANI, J ssk.
W.A.Nos.382, 385, 386and 387 of 2017 12.4.2018.