Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.A.Nos.598, 600, 602 to 609 of 2022 by way of direct recruitment in the various subjects in all totaling to 1663 vacancies. The Writ Petitioners, being qualified in the subject of English, applied for the post and appeared for the written examination. The written examination was conducted on 02.07.2017 and the tentative key answers were published on 19.07.2017. The last date for submitting objections for the key answers expired on 25.07.2017. All the objections received from the candidates were duly considered by the expert committee constituted by the second appellant, Teachers Recruitment Board and accordingly, final key answers were published and the consequential results were also published on 11.08.2017. The provisional list of selected candidates was thereafter published on 12.09.2017. Since all the respondents/writ petitioners fell short of either one or two marks than the cut-off marks for their respective communal category, they were not called for certificate verification. Therefore, pointing out errors either in the questions/ key answers in respect of five questions i.e., question Nos.6, 23, 25, 34 and 93 in question set - A in the examination, Writ Petitions were filed for a Mandamus to award one mark each to the said five questions and consequently to direct the respondents/Writ Petitioners to be appointed in the post of Post Graduate Assistants.

4.The Writ Petitions were resisted by the respondents by filing a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.A.Nos.598, 600, 602 to 609 of 2022 counter affidavit. It is the case of the respondents that the tentative key answers were published in the website on 19.07.2017 and the objections were called for to the tentative key answers with relevant proof of authority on or before 23.07.2017. Thereafter, the respondents, through a committee of subject experts of academic excellence examined representations received by the candidates and the objections were overruled and the final key answers were prepared and based on which, O.M.R sheets of all the candidates were valued and the final results were arrived at and accordingly, the cut-off marks were fixed and based on the cut-off marks, the provisional list was drawn and the successful candidates were called for certificate verification. It is the stand of the appellants/respondents that the questions and the key answers were correct as per the expert committee constituted by them.

7.Secondly, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the second respondent, namely the Teachers Recruitment Board is the expert body. It has constituted the subject matter experts as a committee which has examined all the objections in respect of the key answers and published final keys. Therefore, when the exercise has been duly carried out by the expert body, there was no occasion for this Court to enter into the domain of experts and re-appreciate the correctness or otherwise and the questions and the key answers. In any event, it can be seen that even the expert committee, appointed by the Court also, agreed with the second respondent, Board. In that view of the matter, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the key answers as finalised by the experts and also the expert opinion rendered by the committee of two professors constituted by the Court itself. Therefore, he would submit that this is a case for interference by this Court.

16.Even otherwise, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, the law on the subject has been categorically laid down by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  W.A.Nos.598, 600, 602 to 609 of 2022 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Uttarpradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh and Anr. (cited supra) that 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. Therefore, in the first place, when as per the notification draft key answers were published , the objections were invited and duly considered by an expert committee, appointing another expert committee itself is stretching the discretion, a little far. In any event, when the said experts, constituted by this Court, have opined that even in respect of the said questions, the questions are answerable and the key answers for the same are found to be correct and when the other candidates have answered the questions, the exercise undertaken by the learned Judge, to go into the merits of the said opinion and to form a contrary opinion certainly is not in order as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and therefore, we have no other option than to interfere with the order of the learned Judge and thus, we find that the order of the learned Judge is unsustainable.