W.A.No.360 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.09.2022
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.360 of 2022
and
C.M.P. Nos.2916 & 2917 of 2022
R.Krishnamoorthi ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Home Department, Chennai.
2.The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board,
Chennai – 8. ... Respondents
Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the order
dated 14.11.2019 made in W.P.No.30868 of 2019.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan,
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.A.Selvendran,
Special Government Pleader
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.360 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.,J) This writ appeal is directed against the order of learned single Judge dated 14.11.2019 in and by which the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
2. The grievance of the appellant/ writ petitioner was that by Advertisement No.1 of 2019 dated 06.03.2019, applications were invited for the post of Grade II Police Constable and the writ petitioner also participated in the written examination held on 25.08.2019. However, when the results were released, the appellant stood short of only three marks of the cut-off marks. Therefore, the appellant came forward with the writ petition stating that of the questions asked in the written examination and key answers, there were totally 21 questions which were improper / incorrect or the key answers published for the same were incorrect. In that view of the matter, after receiving representations from the candidates, even though the respondents corrected only seven questions, other 14 questions were left out. In view of the said error, the writ petitioner who ought to Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.360 of 2022 have been selected otherwise was not selected. Therefore, the writ petition was filed for a mandamus directing the respondents to award marks to the writ petitioner for the question numbers 35, 39, 50, 51, 52, 53, 63, 65, 67, 71, 74, 78 and 79.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the learned single Judge ought to considered the questions and the correct answers filed by the writ petitioner in the typed-set of papers filed along with the writ petition and since the questions/key answers were wrong, the learned single Judge ought to have allowed the writ petition.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that this case pertains to the selection of Grade II Police Constables, Grade II Jail Warders and Firemen. He would submit that after key answers were published, objections were received in respect of totally 54 Questions/ Key answers and therefore, an expert committee was constituted to look into the issue and the expert committee considered each and every question and the answers in detail and was of the opinion that except seven questions, the other questions as Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.360 of 2022 well as key answers given to the said questions were in order and as far as the said seven questions are concerned, the correct revised keys were issued and accordingly, the answers were valued in respect of all the candidates, their results were published and therefore he would submit that the learned single Judge had rightly rejected the writ petition.
5. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
6. The learned single Judge had, after taking into account that the experts in the field were formed as a committee by the official respondents and after considering all the objections, the experts have given an opinion and based on the said opinion, they have already corrected the key answers in respect of seven questions and accordingly answer-sheets have been valued. Learned counsel for the appellant/ writ petitioner would now submit that, in any event, the said expert opinion was not produced before the Court.
Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.360 of 2022
8. We are of the opinion that when the expert committee has been constituted and it has gone into the issue especially when the writ petitioner had not made any objection whatsoever when the key answers were published and objections were invited, belatedly, it is not open to the petitioner to complain before this Court that this Court should undertake the exercise of again scrutinizing the expert opinion given by the expert committee. In exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Courts cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the key answers and the nature of question, especially when the same is the question/key answer for every candidate.
9. Accordingly, finding no merits, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(P.U., J) (D.B.C., J) 27.09.2022 Index:No mmi/9 Page 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.360 of 2022 To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Chennai.
2.The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Chennai – 8.
Page 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.360 of 2022 PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
mmi W.A.No.360 of 2022 27.09.2022 Page 7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis