Madras High Court
S.Periasamy vs Teachers Recruitment Board on 25 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
W.P.No.435 of 2020
and
W.M.P.Nos.492 & 494 of 2020
S.Periasamy ...Petitioner
Vs
Teachers Recruitment Board,
Represented by its Chairman,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai - 600 006. ...Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
of the Respondent-Board pertaining to the list of qualified candidates published
on 28.11.2019 and quash the same in so far as it excludes the petitioner and
consequently direct the respondent to call the petitioner for certificate
verification process by considering the petitioner's representation dated
09.12.2019 addressed to the Respondent-Board in accordance with law and as
per the prescribed procedure on the basis of the Notification No.09.2019 dated
01.03.2019 within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For Petitioners :
Mr.G.Adithyaraj,
for Mr.Richardson Wilson
For Respondents : Mr.C.Kathiravan,
Special Government Pleader for TRB.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the
respondent Board pertaining to the list of qualified candidates published on
28.11.2019 and quash the same insofar as it excludes the petitioner and
consequently, direct the respondent to call the petitioner for certificate
verification process by considering the petitioner's representation dated
09.12.2019 addressed to the Respondent Board in accordance with law and as
per the prescribed procedure on the basis of the Notification No.09/2019 dated
01.03.2019 within a time frame.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-
2.1. In response to the notification dated 01.03.2019 issued by the
respondent Board inviting applications through online mode for the post of
"Computer Instructors", Grade - I (Post Graduate Cadre) in School Education
Department for the year 2018-2019, the petitioner applied for the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.2. After receipt of hall ticket, the petitioner participated in the
examination conducted on 23.06.2019. The examination was scheduled to be
conducted from 10.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. The petitioner was allotted Hall 'A' in
the examination centre. Since the computer systems in Hall 'A' were not in a
proper condition, the petitioner and other candidates were allotted Hall 'C',
where also the computer systems were not functioning, because of which, the
examination, which was scheduled to be commenced only at 10.00 a.m.
commenced only at 11.05 a.m. and ended at 12.05 a.m. Thus, the first limb of
grievance of the petitioner is that the computer systems were not functioning
satisfactorily.
2.3. The second limb of grievance of the petitioner is as under:-
a) For question Nos.16 & 130, options were displayed wrong.
b) For question Nos.127 & 46, the key answers wrong were given.
c) Question No.89 itself is wrong.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.4. The grievance of the petitioner is that because of technical snag in
the computer system and also wrong options and wrong question, he could
secure only 49.87% instead of 50% which is the minimum eligibility mark.
2.5. Hence, setting out his grievances, the petitioner addressed a
representation dated 09.12.2019 to the respondent which has not been
considered.
2.6. Meanwhile, the respondent Board published a list of shortlisted
candidates for certificate verification and the name of the petitioner did not find
place in the said list. Hence, challenging the said list, insofar as, it pertains to
his exclusion and for a direction to the respondent to call him for certificate
verification process, by considering his representation dated 09.12.2019, this
writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
technical snag in the computer system and also wrong options and wrong
question, the petitioner could secure only 49.87% instead of 50% which is the
minimum eligibility mark.
4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent has filed a
counter affidavit, from which the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-
"5. It is submitted that the Board published the tentative answer
key on 29.07.2019 and advised the candidates to submit the
representations regarding objections, if any, to the tentative key
answers with relevant proof of authority from 30.07.2019 to
03.08.2019.
8. It is submitted that a committee of Subject Experts with
academic excellence examined the representations received from the
candidates, discussed the objections on the basis of authoritative texts
and framed final key answers. After thorough scrutiny, final and
revised key answers were prepared by the Subject Experts and the
answers of all the candidates were evaluated on the basis of the final
and revised key answers."
5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that opportunity was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
given to the petitioner to file his objections for the tentative key answers with
relevant proof of authority from 30.07.2019 to 03.08.2019 and the
representation was given only on 09.12.2019 belatedly after four months and
hence, the same was not considered by the respondent.
6. The learned counsel relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in The Director of School Education, College
Road, Chennai - 6 & other Vs N.Mercy Vennila (W.A.Nos.598 of 2022 etc
batch cases dated 30.09.2022), the relevant paragraph of which reads as
under:-
"16. Even otherwise, as rightly pointed out by the learned
Additional Advocate General, the law on the subject has been
categorically laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
Uttarpradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Ragul 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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."
and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.P.S.C.,
through its Chairman and other Vs Ragul Singh & other (Civil
Appeal.No.5838 of 2018 decided on 14.06.2018), the relevant paragraph
of which reads as under:-
"14. In the present case, we find that all the 3 questions needed
a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that
the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books.
When there are conflicting views, then the Court must bow down to
the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not
overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts."
7. In view of the above factual matrix of the case and the ratio laid down
by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.08.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
kmm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
Teachers Recruitment Board,
Represented by its Chairman,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
kmm
W.P.No.435 of 2020
25.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
