Madras High Court
N.Suguna vs Teachers Recruitment Board on 10 October, 2022
W.A.No.2234 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.10.2022
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice PARESH UPADHYAY
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.2234 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.16897 of 2022
N.Suguna .. Appellant
vs
1.Teachers Recruitment Board,
Rep. By its Chairman,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.Director of School Education,
Chennai - 600 006. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 04.08.2022 made in W.P.No.11609 of 2015.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Ravi Anantha Padmanaban
For Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakandan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
Standing Counsel for R1
Ms.E.Renganayaki,
Addl. Govt. Pleader for R2
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2234 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY.,J)
This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned
single Judge dated 04.08.2022 in W.P. No.11609 of 2015, in and by
which, the prayer of the writ petitioner, to issue a writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to award two marks for question Nos.14 and
118 in ''B'' Type question paper for the writ petitioner and to declare
the writ petitioner as having passed and appoint her as Computer
Teacher, was rejected by the learned single Judge.
2. The matter arises out of the qualifying examination held by
the respondents for the purpose of regularising/absorbing the services
of the Computer Teachers as one time measure. It is seen that total
number of 150 questions were asked in the said examination.
Aggrieved persons had filed writ petitions and ultimately the matters
came up before the Division Bench of this Court by way of writ
Appeals, in which finding discrepancy in several questions, the Division
Bench appointed a panel of professors/experts who went into the
entire set of questions and recommended that out of 150 questions,
total number of 20 questions have to be deleted from the results and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2234 of 2022
accepting the said expert committee report, those 20 questions were
deleted and on the basis of the remaining 130 questions, the select list
was published. The cut-off marks required was 65. The appellant
herein has scored 64 marks. Aggrieved by her non-selection, the writ
petitioner came to this Court stating that even as per the experts of
the I.I.T. in respect of two other questions the key answers are wrong
and therefore she should be awarded two marks in respect of those
two questions and which was rejected by the learned single Judge.
Aggrieved, the present writ appeal is filed.
3. Mr.K.Ravi Anantha Padmanaban, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that immediately
after publishing of the results, when the appellant's name was not
found, she filed the writ petition. She has not prayed to set aside the
expert committee report. Nor anything contrary to the expert
committee report is prayed. Her prayer is only in accordance with the
report submitted by the expert committee appointed by this Court.
Therefore, by following the wrong key answer an eligible candidate
who is senior most has been left out while the juniors who have given
wrong answers have been selected and therefore when the exercise
has resulted in injustice to the appellant, the learned single Judge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2234 of 2022
ought to have interfered with the selection by awarding the marks to
the appellant herein and thereby holding her to be eligible to be
absorbed regularly in the post and ought to have allowed the writ
petition.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the appellant and perused the material records of the case.
5. At the outset, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner
only for a mandamus to award two marks for herself, without
challenging the selection with appropriate prayers for declaration is not
maintainable. If the case of the petitioner is accepted, then a
candidate who according to her has given a wrong answer and still
selected would also be working. If the said answers are erroneous,
then the it has to be done for the all the candidates and the selection
has to be re-worked. Those persons who may be affected were not
parties. Therefore, the prayer for mandamus to award marks for the
writ petitioner alone per se is unsustainable.
6. Secondly, as rightly pointed out by the learned single
Judge, when the entire issue has been gone into by the Division Bench
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2234 of 2022
of this Court and the Division Bench has considered the expert
committee report that only 20 questions were to be excluded and the
remaining were found to be fit for taking into account. At this belated
point of time, the appellant cannot be permitted to re-agitate the
entire matter which was settled long back by the Division Bench of this
Court in W.A. No.837 of 2010 dated 20.12.2012 and accordingly, the
learned single Judge was right in rejecting the prayer of the writ
petitioner.
7. We find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.U., J) (D.B.C., J)
10.10.2022
Index:No
mmi/3
To
1.The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Director of School Education,
Chennai - 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2234 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
mmi
W.A.No. 2234 of 2022
10.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
