Madras High Court
T. Jothimalar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 May, 2024
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: R. Mahadevan, Mohammed Shaffiq
WA No. 3552 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.05.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. R. MAHADEVAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Writ Appeal No. 3552 of 2023
and
CMP Nos. 29039 and 29040 of 2023
---
T. Jothimalar .. Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government
School Education Department
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009
2. The Director of School Education
DPI Campus, College Road
Chennai - 600 006
3. Teachers Recruitment Board
4th Floor, DPI Campus
College Road, Chennai - 600 006 .. Respondents
Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 23.11.2023 passed in WP No. 33050 of 2023 on the file of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/16
WA No. 3552 of 2023
For Appellant : Ms. Kavitha Nithyanandam
For Respondents : Mr. U.M. Ravichandran
Special Government Pleader for RR1 and 2
Mr. R. Neelakandan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr. R. Siddharth
Government Advocate for R3
JUDGMENT
The Acting Chief Justice
The appellant has come forward with this intra-court appeal aggrieved
by the order dated 23.11.2023 of the learned Judge, dismissing the Writ
Petition No. 33050 0f 2023 filed by her.
2. The appellant has filed the aforesaid writ petition praying to issue
a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to award one mark to her
for Question No. 26 of Master Question paper for the Teacher Eligibility Test
(TET) examination held on 11.02.2023 and to declare her as having passed in
the TET 2023 and to award pass certificate to her.
3. According to the appellant, she is a holder of B.Sc. degree with
B.Ed. In response to the notification issued by the respondents for conducting
TET examination, the appellant applied for the same in the year 2022 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
participated in the written examination conducted on 11.02.2023 - TET
Paper-II, Tamil - Social Science. Subsequently, the third respondent published
the results during March 2023, declaring that the appellant had secured 80
marks, as against the minimum pass mark of 82. After publication of results,
some of the candidates have approached the respondents for revision of the
marks on the ground that certain questions and key answers set by them are
incorrect. Accordingly, revised marks were awarded by the respondents as per
which the marks secured by the appellant were scaled up from 80 to 81.
4. The appellant further stated that while publishing the revised
marks, the respondents did not award one more mark to her for question
No.26. According to the appellant, for Question No.26, the correct answer is
A3, which she had rightly marked. However, the respondents, based on the
expert opinion, have refused to award one mark for her and instead, declared
that A4 is the correct answer for Question No.26.
5. The grievance of the appellant before the learned Judge was
two-fold. Firstly, as per the approved text book (Tamil Nadu Open University -
B.Ed. - Second Year - Science Teaching - Part - II) the correct answer for
question No. 26 is A3 and not A4 and therefore, the third respondent ought to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
have awarded one more mark to her and declared as having passed TET.
Secondly, in spite of the fact that the appellant had established that the answer
given by her to the disputed question No.26 is correct, mark has not been
awarded, with the result, she is unable to apply for the post of Graduate
Teacher/Block Resource Teacher Educator notified by the respondents.
6. When the appeals filed by other similarly placed persons like the
appellants in W.A. Nos. 3463 and 3464 of 2023 were taken up for hearing, this
Court passed an order dated 13.12.2023 permitting the appellants to submit
their online applications along with the registration numbers as required by the
Teachers Recruitment Board enabling them to apply for the post in question,
however, such permission granted is subject to the result of the writ appeals.
Based on the said order dated 13.12.2023, the appellant also submitted her
application online for selection and appointment to the post of Graduate
Teacher.
7. (i) The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend
that the appellant prepared for the examination by reading the text books
recommended by the respondents. Therefore, the various questions set by the
respondents have been answered by the appellant as provided in the text books
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
approved by the Government of Tamil Nadu. As far as the disputed question
No.26 is concerned, the correct answer is A3 and it was correctly written by
the appellant. However, the expert body, without any reason, has concluded
that the answer to question No.26 is A4. The learned counsel invited the notice
of this Court to question No.26. Question No.26 is "which one of the
following is not a part of teaching". The answers set by the respondents are
(A1) providing true knowledge (A2) creating situation of learning (A3)
adjustment environment and (A4) Coaching and training. According to the
learned counsel, the fourth answer namely "coaching and training" may not be
a correct answer inasmuch as coaching and training are inherent in the process
of teaching. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the conclusion
reached by the experts is inaccurate, unreasonable and arbitrary. On the other
hand, the answer No.3 written by the appellant is more accurate and has a
nexus to the question given by the respondents. In this context, the learned
counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable
Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University, through vice Chancellor
and others vs. Samir Gupta and others reported in AIR 1983 SC 1230
wherein it was held that for the mistake committed by the educational
authorities, the student cannot be penalised. In Para Nos. 16 and 17, it was
held as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
"16. Shri. Kacker, who appears on behalf of the university,
contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the
correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree
that the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to
be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential
process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly
demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable
body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as
correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a
large number of acknowledged text books, which are commonly read by
students in U.P. Those text-books leave no room for doubt that the answer
given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect.
17. Students who have passed their intermediate Board
examination are eligible to appear for the entrance test for admission to
the medical colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the
Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as
the students have is derived from what is contained in those text-books.
Those text-books support the case of the students fully. If this were a case
of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if
the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the
students, for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer,
that is to say, with an answer which demonstrated to be wrong."
(ii) The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the decision of
the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others vs.
State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 2018 SC 52. In that case, the High
Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that there is no provision for
re-evaluating the question papers. On appeal, the Honourable Supreme Court
held that even in the absence of provision for re-evaluation, if it is established
that the Selection Board has failed to discharge their statutory obligation to
hold the selection carefully and meticulously, then the Court can step in and
permit re-evaluation. Thus, it was held that if a statute, Rule or regulation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an
answer sheet, then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny if it is
demonstrated very clearly that a material error has been committed in the
conduct of the examination.
(iii) The learned counsel for the appellant further relied on the
decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Rishal and others
vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others reported in
Manu/SC/1642/2018. In that case the Honourable Supreme Court appointed
an expert committee to re-evaluate the question papers. The report of the
expert was served on the appellants. On scrutiny, the appellants submitted that
certain answers given by the Expert Committee are still not correct and they
have also demonstrated before the Honourable Supreme Court. After perusing
the opinion of the expert body and the submissions made by the counsel for the
appellants, the Honourable Supreme Court directed the Rajasthan Public
Service Commission to revise the result of all the candidates, including the
appellants and to award marks thereof. It was also held that even those who
have not approached the Court are also entitled to the benefit of the said order.
(iv) The learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in U.P.P.S.C. and others vs.
Rahul Singh and others reported in AIR 2018 SC 2861 to contend that even
the opinion given by the experts was on the basis of the reference made in the
text books and therefore, reliance placed on the text book is justifiable. In
Para No.14, it was held that the stand of the Commission is also supported by
certain text books and therefore, it is reliable.
(v) In effect, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even
the experts failed to take note of the nature of question No. 26 and the correct
answer for the same. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the opinion
of the experts is unjust and arbitrary and it need not be relied on and
consequently, the respondents must be directed to award one more mark to the
appellant for question No.26.
8.(i) The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the third
respondent would vehemently oppose the writ appeal and contend that the
experts in the field have arrived at an opinion and based on the same, revised
mark list was published by the third respondent. As far as the appellant is
concerned, the answer provided by her to Question No.26 is not correct as per
the opinion of the experts. When experts in the field have examined the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
objections raised by the candidates, including the appellant and submitted their
report, it cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It is further submitted that after thorough scrutiny by the
subject experts, the final key was arrived at on the basis of which the computer
based examination for TET Paper II was evaluated. The revised and final key
arrived at by the experts were published along with the results on 27.07.2023
in the official website of the third respondent/Board and it is final. The release
of final key answers pertains to 84 objections made by the candidates
including the appellant and they were thoroughly scrutinised by the experts
committee and a decision has been arrived. As per the decision of the experts,
re-verification was done for all sessions and all questions. On the basis of the
report of the experts, 15 questions in 11 sessions were revised and the revised
result was published on 27.07.2023. Thus, the question challenged by the
appellant has already been scrutinised by the experts in the field.
(ii) The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that
the answer keys challenged by the appellant have already been scrutinised by
the Board and revised mark list was published and it has attained finality.
Challenging the revised mark list, writ petitions were filed and they were
dismissed. While so, at this stage, the relief sought by the appellant in this
appeal to award one mark to her cannot be countenanced and it has to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rejected.
(iii) The learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance on the
decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar vs.
Staff Selection Commission and another passed in SLP (C) No. 1951 of
2022 wherein it was held as follows:-
"The grievance voiced by the petitioner before the High Court was
that certain marks which were deducted ought not to have been deducted.
Basically, the issue before the High Court was evaluation of the answer
scripts of the petitioner. The High Court has rightly refused to entertain
the writ petition by observing that when the conscious decision has been
taken by the experts and the Courts have no expertise in the academic
matter, cannot interfere with the same. Hence, the Special Leave Petition
stands dismissed."
(iv) The learned Additional Advocate General also placed reliance on
the judgment dated 08.09.2014 passed in the case of B. Florance Mary and
another vs. The Chairman, TRB in W.A. Nos. 1097 and 1099 of 2014
wherein a Division Bench of this Court held thus:-
"6. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant in W.A. No. 1099 of 2014 that one question has not been
covered by the earlier orders passed by the learned single Judge, we are
not inclined to accept the same for the reason that the expert body, on an
analysis, found that the answer given by the appellant in W.A. No. 1099 of
2014 was not a correct one. It is settled law that while exercising the
discretionary and extraordinary power under Article 226 of The
Constitution of India, this Court cannot act like an expert body by
replacing the assessment made by experts."
(v) The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent also placed reliance on the orders of this Court viz., (1) Priya N vs.
The Secretary to Government in WP (MD) No. 2527 of 2015 (2) Order dated
21.02.2022 passed in the case of Sumathi vs. The Chairman, TRB in WP No.
3063 of 2022 and (3) Order dated 25.10.2016 made in WP No. 4682 of 2015
in the case of S. Jayalakshmi vs. TRB, to contend that when the final key
answers have been examined and thoroughly scrutinised by an expert body
constituted by the third respondent, the correctness of such opinion need not
be subjected to judicial scrutiny. When the experts have zeroed in on a
particular answer as the correct answer to disputed question No.26,
interference of this Court is not warranted in directing the respondents to
award one more mark to the appellant. The learned Additional Advocate
General also submitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu has issued G.O.
(Ms) No.149, School Education (TRB) dated 20.07.2018 introducing a
competitive examination for selection and appointment to the post of B.T.
Assistants from among the TET passed candidates. Challenging the said
Government Order, writ petitions were filed and they were dismissed by this
Court. Thus, when the appellant did not secure the pass mark in the TET
examination, she is ineligible to participate in the competitive examination. In
such view of the matter, if the appellant is awarded one more mark as prayed
for in the writ petition, the respondents will have to act contrary to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
notification issued for recruitment to the post and against the policy decision
taken by the Government. Therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General
prayed for dismissing this appeal.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also
perused the materials placed on record.
10. At the outset, it must be stated that this appeal is confined only in
respect of awarding of one mark to the appellant for question No.26 in the
TET examination conducted on 11.02.2023. Question No.26 and the answers
set by the respondents are noted below:-
Question No.26. Which one of the following is not a part of teaching?
Answer No.1: Providing true knowledge
Answer No.2: Creating situation of learning
Answer No.3: Adjustment environment
Answer No.4: Coaching and Training.
11. According to the appellant, she has written the answer to question
No.26 as A3 and it is correct. In other words, the answer - A4 - "Coaching
and Training" may not be the correct answer to the question and it is one of the
processes involved in teaching. It is her further contention that the respondents
have zeroed in on answer No.4 which says "coaching and training". When
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
coaching and training are per se integral part of teaching, therefore, question
No.4 may not be the correct answer. However, the respondents as well as the
experts have zeroed in on answer No.4 as the correct answer and it calls for
interference by this Court.
12. We find considerable force in the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellant. It is true that the respondents have constituted an
expert committee and the committee had concluded that 15 questions in 11
sessions asked in the competitive examination are not correct and
recommended for change of the key answers. However, insofar as question
No.26 is concerned, the experts have opined that answer No.4 is correct and
not answer No.3, which was written by the appellant.
13. It is well settled that this Court has no expertise to examine the
correctness or otherwise of the answers set by the respondents. For this
purpose, an expert committee was constituted. However, the expert opinion
need not be relied on as a gospel truth by this Court. This is more so that the
appellant placed heavy reliance on the approved text book (Tamilnadu Open
University - B.Ed. - Second Year - Science Teaching - Part II). It is needless
to mention that the book has been approved by the Tamil Nadu Open
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
University and the candidates, including the appellant, who appeared for the
competitive examination must have relied on the same. On going through the
question No.26, we feel that the third option (A3) is the correct answer and it
was written by the appellant. This is also fortified from the approved text book
relied on by the appellant. Even otherwise, the question No.26 is a negative
question as to whether which one of the following is not a part of teaching.
For such question, answer No.3, in our opinion, will be more appropriate and
has a nexus to the question. While so, merely because the experts have opined
the correct answer as A4, we need not blindly accept it knowing fully well that
it is wrong and dismiss the appeal of the appellant.
14. It is well settled position of law that the Courts should be slow in
interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. However, there is no
embargo for the Courts to disregard the opinion of the experts, if it is
demonstrated that the opinion so rendered may not be correct and unreliable.
In this regard, in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in
Kanpur University case mentioned supra, it was held that judicial review
cannot be totally ousted in certain circumstances where it was established that
the answer set by the respondents is palpably wrong. In this case, on perusal
of question No.26 and the four choice of answers given thereto, we are of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
view that answer No.3 written by the appellant will be more appropriate and it
is also supported by the approved text book. While so, we see no reason to
reject the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant to award one more mark
to her for Question No.26. Thus, on the strength of the approved text book
produced by the appellant, we are of the definite and clear view that the
answer to the question No.26 is A3 which was correctly written by the
appellant. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to one more mark for question
no.26.
15. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the order
dated 23.11.2023 passed in WP No. 33050 of 2023. The respondents are
directed to award one more mark to the appellant for question No.26 and
consequently declare her as having passed the TET examination held on
11.02.2023. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
[R.M.D., A.C.J.] [M.S.Q., J]
24.05.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
rsh
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government
School Education Department
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
rsh
2. The Director of School Education
DPI Campus, College Road
Chennai - 600 006
3. Teachers Recruitment Board
4th Floor, DPI Campus
College Road, Chennai - 600 006
24-05-2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
