Madras High Court
R.Jeya Rani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 November, 2023
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 24.11.2023
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 29.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and
13352 of 2023
and
W.M.P(MD).Nos.9089 of 2023
W.P(MD).No.8113 of 2023
R.Jeya Rani ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by its Secretary
Department of School Education
Fort St.George, Chennai 09
2.The Teachers Recruitment Board
represented by its Chairman
4th Floor, EVK Sampathmalikai
College Road, Chennai 06 ...Respondents
Prayer in WP(MD).No.8113 of 2023: This Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Declaration, directing the
second respondent herein to declare the Key Answer to Question Nos.3 and 5
in TNTET Paper -II Tamil -Maths and Science are wrong in so far as the
petitioner is concerned and award one mark to the petitioner for the Question
No.3 in TNTET Paper II Tamil-Maths and Science.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/24
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
Prayer in WP(MD).No.8113 of 2023
For Petitioner : M/s.A.Amala
For R1 : Mr.N.GA.Natraj
Government Advocate
For R2 : Mr.Veera.Kathiraven
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan
Standing Counsel
COMMON ORDER
W.P(MD).Nos.8113,10235,10455, 10456,10851, 12410, 12706,12712,
and 13353 of 2023 have been filed by the candidates who appeared for
Paper-II in Tamil Nadu Teachers Eligibility Test examination conducted
online on various dates in February-2023.
2.The petitioners have prayed for writ of declaration that certain
questions have been wrongly framed and the final answer keys published by
the Teachers Recruitment Board on 28.03.2023 are wrong for several
questions. The petitioners have sought for a mandamus to re-evaluate their
answer sheets and award marks and declare them as successful in Paper-II
TNTET examination
3.The grievance of the petitioners in each of the writ petitions are
as follows:
The petitioner contends that the Question No.3 has been wrongly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
framed and the final answer key for Question No.5 is wrong. The petitioner
had contended that she had secured 81 marks and in case, if marks are
awarded correctly to these questions, she would get qualified.
(ii)W.P(MD).No.10235 of 2023:
The petitioner had contended that Question No.60 is out of
syllabus and the key answer for Question Nos.126 and 132 are wrong. She
had already secured 81 marks and if marks are allotted to her properly,
considering the correct answer, she would get qualified.
(iii)WP(MD).No.10455 of 2023:
The petitioner had contended that Question Nos.3 and 150 have
been wrongly framed and the final answer key to Question Nos. 29 and 147
are wrong. The petitioner had already secured 81 marks and if the marks are
awarded to these four questions, he would get qualified.
(iv).WP(MD).No.10456 of 2023:
According to the petitioner, the final key answer for Question
Nos.5, 74 and 79 are wrong. She had already secured 81 marks. If the marks
are properly awarded to these three questions, she would get qualified.
(v).WP(MD).No.10851 of 2023:
According to the petitioner, Question No.62 is out of syllabus
and Question No.69 has been wrongly framed. The petitioner had already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
secured 79 marks and in case, if the marks are awarded to these questions,
she would get qualified.
(vi)WP(MD).No.12410 of 2023:
According to the petitioner, Question Nos.7,4, 118 and 124 have
been wrongly framed and the key answer to Question Nos.63 and 67 are
wrong. The petitioner had already secured 78 marks and in case, if marks are
awarded to her for the above said questions, she would get qualified.
(vii)WP(MD).No.12706 of 2023:
According to the petitioner, the key answer for Question Nos.
3,7,11,19,20,23,24,29,36,38,41,52,57,59,60,62,63,67,70,73,83,89,90,91,103,
111,114,115,124,129,130,131,133,138,139,140 and 142 are wrong. The
petitioner had already secured 73 marks. In case, if the marks are evaluated to
these questions, the petitioner would get qualified.
(viii).WP(MD).No.12712 of 2023:
The final answer key to Question No.137 is wrong. The
petitioner having secured 81 marks, if marks are allotted to her for Question
No.137, she would get qualified.
(ix)WP(MD).No.13352 of 2023:
According to the petitioner, the key answer to Question No.135
is wrong. He had already secured 81 marks and if mark is award to him for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
Question No.135, he would be qualified.
4.Contentions of the learned counsels for the writ petitioners are as
follows:
(i)The tentative answer keys were published by the Teachers
Recruitment Board on 22.02.2023 calling for objection to be submitted on or
before 25.02.2023. All the petitioners have raised their objections with regard
to framing of questions or with regard to the tentative answer keys to the
Teachers Recruitment Board within the time specified. Without properly
appreciating the said objections, the final answer keys have been published
by the Board on 28.03.2023. Based upon the final answer keys, the mark
statements have been uploaded.
(ii)The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners relied upon
certain standard books on the relevant subject or the books published by the
Tamil Nadu Textbooks Society from 6th to 12th standards and contend that the
final answer keys are not in consonance with the said standard books and the
textbooks.
(iii)The Board has not placed on record the name of the experts or the
standards books or textbooks relied upon those experts for arriving at the
final answer keys. Hence, there is no transparency on the part of the board in
publishing the final answer keys disregarding the objection raised by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
candidates.
(iv)Though it is mentioned in the Notification that the questions would
be at the level of 6th to 8th standards, in some cases, the questions are outside
the syllabus and therefore, the marks ought to have been awarded to the said
relevant questions irrespective of wrong answers. If the Board does not
consider the objections raised by the candidates, but solely relied upon the
experts whose opinion are credential have not been made public, the
candidates would be put to great hardship.
(v)When the petitioners specifically relied upon the standard books on
the relevant subject and the books published by the Tamil Nadu Textbooks
Society (which is the book prescribed for the students), the experts cannot
rely upon a different book to arrive at an answer which is beyond the syllabus
and contrary to the textbooks.
(vi)The textbooks are published by Tamil Nadu Textbooks Corporation
which is a Government entity and therefore, the candidates have every right
to rely upon the said textbooks in order to support the answers given by them
to the relevant questions. In some cases, the experts are relying upon the
textbooks and in other cases, the experts take a different view relying upon
some other books, which is not known to the candidates. Therefore, no format
is being followed by the experts in giving opinion for the objections raised by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
the candidates.
(vii)The examinations are online/computer based and they were more
than 20 sessions. Each session had a different question paper. Therefore, the
answer sheets could not be valued on a single scale which would jeopardise
the interest of the petitioners. No steps have been placed by the Board to
normalise the marks obtained by the different candidates who had appeared in
different sessions with different set of question papers.
(viii)The petitioner had relied upon the judgment of the learned Single
Judge of this Court in WP(MD).No.22129 of 2022 dated 02.11.2022
(K.Vinopratha Vs. The Teachers Recruitment Board and another) wherein,
this Court has interfered in the writ petition and had proceeded to hold that
when the final key answer is patently wrong, the Court cannot shut its eyes
and refuse to set it aside.
(ix)The learned counsel for the petitioners had further relied upon a
Division Bench Judgment of our High Court in W.A.No.2364 of 2022
(T.Udaykumar Vs.The Union of India and others) dated 19.10.2022 wherein
the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to award four grace marks to the
writ petitioner NEET(UG)-2022 examination considering the fact that the key
answer to a particular question is wrong.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
(x)Therefore, this Court does not lack jurisdiction to evaluate the
expert opinion to arrive at a conclusion whether the key answer arrived at by
the experts are correct or not.
(xi)The view of the experts cannot be considered to a gospel truth
when the key answer are demonstrably wrong and this Court can very well
pierce through the expert opinion and can arrive at a different opinion. This
Court can very well consider the materials placed on record by the candidates
through standard books and textbooks published by the Tamil Nadu
Government to arrive at a finding that the expert opinion are wrong.
(xii)The Board cannot hide themselves behind the expert opinion and
contend that the key answer finalised by them alone are correct and they will
not permit further scrutiny. Merely because the experts in a particular subject
have rendered a particular opinion (it continues to be an opinion) and it does
not prevent the Court from evaluating whether the said questions are correct
or not in the light of the standards books or textbooks placed on record by the
writ petitioners.
(xiii)The learned counsel for the petitioners had relied upon a judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 (Ran Vijay
Singh & others Vs. State of U.P and others) wherein in paragraph No.30 (ii)
it is held that even though there is no provision for re-evaluation, the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
may permit such re-evaluation only if it is established that a material error has
been committed. In the present case, as demonstrated by the petitioners, some
of the questions are out of syllabus, some of the questions have been wrongly
framed and for many questions, the key answers are wrong. Therefore, this
Court does not lack jurisdiction to consider the issue of interfering in the
result.
(xiv) The Court may even appoint another expert committee to re-
evaluate the questions which are in dispute so that a correct conclusion can
be arrived. Hence, the petitioners prayed for re-evaluation of their answer
sheets in the light of their objections raised to the respective questions, to
award marks and to declare them as qualified in Paper-II.
5.Contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State are as follows:
(i)The examination was conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board
on 15.02.2023 and the tentative answer keys were published on 22.02.2023.
Several objections were received from the candidates till 25.02.2023. These
objections were placed before an expert body consisting of more than 100
experts on various subjects. After evaluating the questions and the tentative
key answers, they have accepted 15 objections and revised the answer keys.
Based upon their opinion, final answer keys were published on 28.03.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
Therefore, the contention of the writ petitioners that their objections were not
properly considered or the tentative answer keys were not revised is not
correct.
(ii)The very fact that the tentative key answer to 15 questions were
revised by the Board on the basis of the expert opinion would reveal that the
Board has accepted the fact that there are some errors on the tentative key
answer and they have rectified the same and published the final key answer.
(iii)The petitioners have never alleged that their objections have not
been considered. The primary objections of the petitioners is that the key
answers arrived at by the experts are not correct in the light of certain books
placed on record by the candidates.
(iv)The learned Additional Advocate General had relied upon the
judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2018) 2 SCC 357 (Ran
Vijay Singh & others Vs. State of U.P and others) particularly paragraph
No.30 and contended that the Court should not re-evaluate the answer sheets
in view of the fact that it has no expertise in the academic matters and he had
further contended that the Court should presume the correctness of the key
answers and in case of any doubt, the benefit would go only to the exam
conducting body and not to the candidates.
(v)The learned Additional Advocate General also relied upon a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 7 SCC 254
( U.P.P.S.C, through its Chairman and another Vs. Rahul Singh &
aanother) and contend that the onus is upon the candidates to establish that
the key answer is not only incorrect but it is also a glaring mistake. He had
further contended that the Judges cannot take the role of experts in the
academic matters.
(vi)He had further contended that 2,54,224 candidates appeared for the
examination. Out of the said candidates, only 18 candidates have filed the
writ petitions challenging the final answer keys before the Madurai Bench
and 20 candidates have filed the writ petitions before the Principal Seat.
Other than these candidates, none of them have chosen to challenge the final
answer keys published by the Board. At the instance of these 38 candidates,
the answer sheets cannot be re-evaluated. Hence he prayed for dismissal of
the writ petitions.
6.Contentions of the learned Advocate appearing for the Teachers
Recruitment Board are as follows:
(i)The Board after receiving objections from the candidates, had
constituted a expert body consisting of more than 100 experts from various
subjects to evaluate the objections raised by the candidates to the tentative
key answers.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
(ii) The experts have been chosen from different fields who are
connected with the questions over which disputes were raised by the
candidates. On the basis of the standard textbooks, these experts have arrived
at the final key answers.
(iii)In fact, the objections raised with regard to 15 questions by the
candidates were accepted by the expert body and they have chosen to revise
the tentative key answers while publishing the final key answers. Therefore,
this will show that the Board was not reluctant to consider the objections and
to revise the key answers. If the tentative key answers to other questions were
found to be erroneous by the expert body, the Board would have revised those
answers also.
(iv)In some cases, the candidates have relied upon some books or
guides published by the private parties to buttress their contentions that the
final answers are erroneous. Therefore, the said contention cannot be
considered upon by this Court.
(v) The qualifying examination is being conducted for teachers who are
going to take classes for 6th to 10th standards. Therefore, the candidates cannot
contend that they were expecting the questions from textbooks of the classes
6th to 8th standards for taking classes up to 10th standard. The candidates are
expected to have adequate knowledge up to 12th standard, so that they can
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
handle the standards. Therefore, the experts have not found any one of the
questions as out of syllabus.
(vi)The learned advocate requested the Court to consider the report
filed by him on 27.11.2023 consisting of the expert body from various
subjects who had evaluated the objections raised by the candidates. Hence, he
prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
7.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the material records.
8.Out of syllabus and erroneous framing of questions:
(I) Various petitioners have raised a grievance that some of the
questions are out of syllabus and some of the questions have not been
properly framed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in
(2018) 2 SCC 357 (Ran Vijay Singh & others Vs. State of U.P and others) in
paragraph No.31 has held as if an error is committed by the examination
authority, the complete body of candidates suffer. The entire examination
process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates feel
that injustice has been caused to them by an erroneous question or an
erroneous answer. Even assuming that such a question is out of syllabus or
the questions have been erroneously framed, all the candidates who had
appeared in the examination would suffer. The writ petitioners alone cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
claim that they have been put to hardship. Any award of marks to the writ
petitioners would be doing injustice to other candidates who had understood
the said question in a particular way and proceeded to answer the said
question which had tallied with the final answer key published by the
Teachers Recruitment Board.
(ii)A perusal of the Notification dated 07.03.2022 reveals that the
questions in Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test (TNTET) Paper-II will be
based on the topic of the prescribed syllabus of the State for Classes VI to
VIII with their difficulty level as well as linkages up to the Higher Secondary
Stage. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the questions were
beyond the syllabus prescribed for Classes VI to VIII cannot be legally
countenanced. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the plea relating
to out of syllabus questions and the questions that have been framed wrongly.
9.Erroneous answer keys:
(i)All the petitioners have contended that they have raised objections
to the tentative answer keys and without considering their objections, the
final answer keys have been published. When published final answer keys are
demonstrably erroneous, this Court should interfere and set-right the same.
The petitioners have also relied upon the judgment of the learned Single
Judge of this Court in WP(MD).No.22129 of 2019 ( K.Vinopratha Vs. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
Teachers Recruitment Board and another) dated 02.11.2022 and W.A.No.
2364 of 2022 (T.Udhaykumar Vs. The Union of India and others) dated
19.10.2022.
10.The petitioners have also relied upon paragraph No.30(ii) of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 (Ran
Vijay Singh & others Vs. State of U.P and others) to contend that when
material error has been committed and in rare or exceptional cases, this Court
can interfere.
11.The learned counsel appearing for the Teachers Recruitment Board
has placed on record the list of experts who were appointed to consider the
objections raised by the candidates. A perusal of the said experts' details
clearly indicate that they are either College Professors or Academicians or
P.G.Assistants in their respective fields. Each one of the experts have
considered the objections raised by the candidates on the relevant subject and
has ultimately arrived at a finding that the tentative answer keys for 15
questions are erroneous and they have proceeded to revise the answer keys.
Based upon the said revised final answer keys, the Teachers Recruitment
Board has proceeded to award marks.
12.In some cases, the petitioners have relied upon some standards
textbooks on the relevant subject or textbooks published by Tamil Nadu
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
Textbooks Corporation to buttress their contentions that their answers are
correct and the answers finalised by the experts are not correct.
13.On going through the expert details submitted by way of a report,
this Court finds that there are no reason to suspect the credentials of those
experts. This Court cannot sit on appeal as against the expert opinion and
adjudicate upon an academic issue whether the answers finalised by the
expert body is correct or the answer that is projected by the candidates are
correct.
14.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2018) 2
SCC 357 (Ran Vijay Singh & others Vs. State of U.P and others) in
paragraph No.30 has summarised the law on the jurisdiction of the Court to
interfere in the academic issue which is extracted as follows:
“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we
only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:
(i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or
scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the
authority conducting the examination may permit it;
(ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an
answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court
may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstr
very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or
exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;
(iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or
scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate–it has no
expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to
academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness
of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and
(v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the
examination authority rather than to the candidate. “
15.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 2018 7 SCC
254 (U.P.P.S.C, through its Chairman and another Vs. Rahul Singh &
another) after following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported
in (2018) 2 SCC 357 (Ran Vijay Singh & others Vs. State of U.P and
others), in paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 14 has held as follows:
“12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the
candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is
incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally
apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to
show that the key answer is wrong. 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. In Kanpur University case (supra), the Court
recommended a system of - (1) moderation; (2) avoiding
ambiguity in the questions; (3) prompt decisions be taken to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such
questions.
13. As far as the present case is concerned even before
publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got
the key answers moderated by two expert committees. Thereafter,
objections were invited and a 26 member committee was
constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise
the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2
questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these
committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the
examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the role of experts
in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the
key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts
cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of
the arguments given by both sides and then come to the
conclusion as to which of the answer is better or more correct.
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 fields and, therefore, they must
exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction
to upset the opinion of the experts.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
16.A combined reading of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
would reveal the following prepositions of law:
(i)The Court has to presume the correctness of the answer keys and
proceed on their assumption and in cases of any doubt, benefit would go to
the examining authority and not to the candidates.
(ii).It is completely beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to ascertain the
correctness of answer keys.
(iii)The entire burden is upon the candidates to demonstrate that the
key answers are incorrect and it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent.
(iv)It is the burden of the candidates to establish that the mistake is
apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the
key answer is wrong.
(v)When a long process of reasoning is required, the Court should not
enter into the academic field and come to a conclusion as to which of the
answer is better or more correct.
(vi)Even in such cases, when there are conflicting views, the Court has
to bow down to the opinion of the experts.
17.The petitioners have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of our High Court in W.A.No.2364 of 2022 (T.Udaykumar
Vs.The Union of India and others) dated 19.10.2022 wherein the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
Division Bench was pleased to award four marks to a candidate in NEET
(UG)-2022 examination. A perusal of the facts which are reflected in
paragraph No.11 will clearly indicate that even the examining authority has
admitted that the key answer to a particular question was wrong. Only based
upon the admission made by examining authority, the Court has proceeded to
award grace marks. It is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
18.The learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon a
judgement of the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(MD).No.22129 of
2022 dated 02.11.2012 (K.Vinopratha Vs The Teachers Recruitment Board
and another). In the said writ petition, the final answer keys to two questions
for the competitive examination conducted by Teacher Recruitment Board for
the post of P.G.Assistant (English) was put to challenge. One of the questions
relates to the name of the narrator of a Novel. Another question relates to
choosing of the correct word. The learned Single Judge has proceeded to
undertake to exercise of finding out the correct answer. Thereafter, found that
the final key answers published by the Board were erroneous. The exercise
undertaken by the learned Judge would reveal that it does not require any
long process of reasoning or detail study of any standard books. However, in
the present case, some of the petitioners have relied upon the guides
published by the private parties and others have relied upon some standard
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
books published on the relevant subjects and the textbooks prescribed by
Tamil Nadu Textbooks Corporation.
19.Unless the Court embarks upon a long process of reasoning and
discussion, the Court would not be in a position to arrive at a correct answer.
Each one of the questions have been considered by not less than three experts
on the relevant subject and ultimately, the final key answer has been
published. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited supra, this Court would not
enter into the academic field and upset the expert opinion rendered on the
tentative key answers.
20.It is not a case where the Board has chosen to adamantly refused to
accept any one of the objections raised by the candidates. The expert body
had found that 15 tentative answer keys are erroneous and has chosen to
revise those key answers. The Board has accepted the said expert opinion and
proceeded to revise the key answers and published the final key answers.
Therefore, this Court has no reason to doubt the expert opinion or the
bonafides of the Board in publishing the final key answer and the ultimate
results.
21.As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General,
out of 2,54,224 candidates, only 38 of them have chosen to contend that some
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
of the questions are out of syllabus and some questions have been wrongly
framed or the key answers to some of the questions are erroneous. As pointed
out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2018) 2 SCC 357 (Ran Vijay Singh &
others Vs. State of U.P and others), the entire examination process does not
deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed in view
of an erroneously question or an erroneous answer. All the candidates suffer
equally, though some might suffer more but they cannot be helped since
mathematical precision is not always possible. Therefore, at the instance of
these writ petitioners, the entire examination process cannot be derailed
which would have a cascading effect of disturbing the result of other
candidates who have not challenged the evaluation process.
22.In view of the above said deliberations, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there are no merits in the writ petitions and the same
stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
29.11.2023
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
To
1.The Secretary
The State of Tamil Nadu
Department of School Education
Fort St.George, Chennai 09
2.The Chairman
Teachers Recruitment Board
4th Floor, EVK Sampathmalikai
College Road, Chennai 06
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455, 10456,
10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and 13352 of 2023
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Pre-delivery order made in
W.P.(MD).Nos.8113, 10235, 10455,
10456,10851, 12410, 12706,12712, and
13352 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD).Nos.9089
of 2023
29.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
