Madras High Court
R.Krishnamoorthi vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 27 September, 2022
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
