Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Aggrieved by the action of the third respondent in not awarding full marks, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit on 22.04.2024 followed by an additional counter affidavit dated 24.03.2025. Both in the counter affidavit and in additional counter affidavit, the third respondent has narrated the methodology followed by the respondents for awarding marks. The third respondent has also extracted the calculation method adopted by the National Stock Exchange Information Technology in respect of calculation of normalised marks for multi-session papers. The counter affidavit is followed by an additional counter affidavit, wherein also the respondent has demonstrated at https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/01/2026 04:16:26 pm ) paragraph No. 9 as to how the petitioner has faired in the examination and the break up of the questions attempted by him and the correct and wrong answers given by him. The third respondent has categorically demonstrated as to how it had arrived at the total marks secured by the petitioner and as to how the marks was arrived at 98.17 marks.

5. Though the petitioner had an ample time, the petitioner has not chosen to file any re-joinder in response to the affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed by the third respondent disputing the methodology adopted by the respondents while awarding marks.

6. This Court had heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. Awarding of marks for multi-session papers and calculation of normalised marks for such papers is not within the domain of this Court. This Court normally would not venture into areas which require expertise and this Court would accept the opinion of the experts in the field. The third respondent has given at paragraph No.4 as to how calculation of normalised marks for multi-session papers is done. This Court is not inclined to doubt the method adopted by the experts in the field. Though the counter affidavit was filed now, but the petitioner has not chosen to file any re-joinder disputing the method adopted by the respondents in the case of awarding marks. Therefore, this Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/01/2026 04:16:26 pm ) is not inclined to doubt the statement made by the third respondent in the case of awarding marks to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has not imputed any motives against the respondents for awarding him less marks. The respondents have purely played the rule book and they awarded marks to the petitioner that he is entitled to. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.