Madras High Court
C.Thirunavukkarasu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 April, 2025
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar, C.Saravanan
2025:MHC:1117
W.A.No.3486 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On 17.12.2024
Pronounced On 29.04.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.No.3486 of 2024
and
C.M.P.Nos.27132 and 27134 of 2024
C.Thirunavukkarasu
S/o.K.Chinnappaiyan ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented 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 / Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the Order dated
29.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.20622 of 2024.
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
W.A.No.3486 of 2024
For Appellant : Mrs.Kavitha Nithyanandan
For Respondents :
For R1 & R2 : Mr.U.M.Ravichandran
Special Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.R.Neelakandan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.SARAVANAN, J.)
This Intra-Court Appeal is directed against the Order dated 29.07.2024
passed by a Writ Court in W.P.No.20622 of 2024, dismssing the Writ Petition
filed by the appellant herein.
2. The above Writ Petition was filed by the appellant herein for the
following relief:-
“Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue Writ of Declaration, to declare that the
petitioner is eligible for additional marks in the competitive
examination held by the third respondent on 04.02.2024 and
consequently eligible to be appointed as Graduate Teacher –
History pursuant to the recruitment notification No.3/2023
dated 25.10.2023 and addendum notifications No.03A/2023
dated 15.11.2023 and No.03B/2023 dated 17.05.2024.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
3. Operative portion of the Order dated 29.07.2024 passed in
W.P.No.20622 of 2014 reads as under:-
“3. The issues raised by the petitioner in this writ petition
have already been dealt with by this Court in
WP.No.15785 of 2024, etc., batch dated 01.07.2024 and
the relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:-
16. That apart, now the entire certificate
verification has been completed and the Board
is about to publish the selection list. At this
juncture, if the claims of the petitioners are
accepted, it will lead to alteration of selection
list, thereby selected candidates will be
prejudiced. As stated supra, if there is
discrepancy in framing the questions, answers
and awarding marks, it will be for all the
candidates and not for the petitioners only.
17. This Court after hearing the
petitioners, by an order dated 24.06.2024,
directed the respondents to answer the
following queries:-
“(i) The procedure
contemplated by the agency while
initially framing the questions,
arriving at the key answers, while
considering the objections and
arriving at the final answers;
(ii) In respect of the questions
which are given as star and marks are
given, whether all the questions have
been printer mistake and if so,
whether any expert was involved in
verifying the draft of the question
paper?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
(iii) The Court will only then
consider the larger question that how
much percentage of mistakes can be
there in a given exam and if the
mistakes are beyond a particular
level, whether it would amount to very
results being fortunates are not?
(iv) If so at what percentage,
the mistakes can be permitted to be
corrected?”
18. Insofar as the first query raised by
this Court, the Board answered that all the
question papers are set up at the Board-s office
by the experts as per the syllabus allotted to
them. After correction by the experts, it was
sent to the printer. After completion of
examination, tentative key answers were
published by the Board as provided by the
experts. In the online objection tracker portal,
the candidates can raise their objections with
standard materials to substantiate their
difference in answers. The objections and the
materials are placed before the experts and the
final key answer, as provided by the experts,
was published by the Board.
19. Insofar as the second query is
concerned, spelling error in Tamil/English
happened due to the setter's style of writing.
Therefore, it can be taken as printing error.
Further in order to maintain confidentiality of
the question paper, no experts were involved
for verifying the draft question paper. Insofar
as the third query is concerned, there are no
negative marks in the examination conducted
by the Board. So, if there is any error in the
question paper/ambiguous answers, final key
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
answers were released based on the report of
the subject experts. Whenever error occurs in
questions/ambiguous answers, the particular
questions are treated as star marked question
and were awarded marks to all the candidates,
who have attended the examination, invariably.
Insofar as the fourth query is concerned, there
is no negative marks are awarded for the
wrong answers as such percentage of mistake
not a par.
20. The above explanation seems to be
fair and acceptable one. Therefore, as stated
supra, this Court must bow down to the opinion
of the experts and the Courts cannot be experts
in all fields. Therefore, this Court cannot
overstep its jurisdiction to upset the opinion of
the experts. The questions which are marked
with star are awarded marks irrespective of all
candidates, who had attended or not attended
the star marked question. Further, for the
questions in multiple answers, the candidates
who marked any one of the answer as per the
final key answers, were awarded marks. Even
after awarding the marks to the petitioners,
they were not coming under the zone of
consideration for certificate verification.
21. Therefore, the prayers sought for in
these writ petitions cannot be granted.
However considering the facts and
circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass
the following directions:-
(i) In future, the Board must
ensure that there will not be any
ambiguous questions and answers in
the examination for any recruitment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
(ii) The Board is directed to
verify the draft question papers and
tentative answer key before sending
them for printing.
(iii) The Board is directed to
correct the draft question papers and
key answers with the help of experts
who are not the original question
paper setter.
(iv) The Board is directed to
frame guidelines for the experts to
arrive correct answers with approved
materials.”
4. Apart from the issues involved in those writ
petitions, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
raised ground as to 'whether the ratio of 1:1:25 has been
followed or not'. However, on instruction, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as
per the notification, under GT, there are 150 posts and
under SC/SCA, there are 146 posts. The petitioner applied
under SC quota. While applying the ratio of 1:1:25 for
certificate verification, the third respondent called for
candidates for certification verification under SC/SCA
quota for 146 posts, they called 174 candidates out of 183
candidates. Since there is no candidate available for
persons with disability and Special B.Ed, communal turn
which is totalling to 7 communal turns. Hence, 9
candidates were called for certificate verification. The cut
off mark for SC quota is 79, whereas the petitioner had
scored 78 marks including the weightage marks.
Therefore, the petitioner was not called for certificate
verification.
5. In view of the above, this writ petition is devoid of
merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly,
this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order
as to costs.”
4. The appellant assails the Impugned Order of the Writ Court primarily
on the ground that the respondents have not awarded marks to the appellant for
Question No.40 and Question No.109 in Part B. Part B contains objective type
questions with options to tick the correct answer from a choice of four answers.
5. For the purpose of clarity, both these questions are reproduced below:-
40. ------------- was the first 109.Name the Chinese ruler who
independent Muslim ruler who was known as “Old Buddha”.
styled himself as 'Sultan'.
A) Muhammed of Ghori A) Chun
B) Muhammed of Ghazini B) Tsu-Shi
C) Iltutmish C) Kang-yu-wai
D) Qutb-bu-din Aibak D) Pu-Yi
6. According to the appellant, the correct answer for Question No.40 was
Option-D which was ticked by the appellant and the four answers given for
Question No.109 were incorrect as the correct answer would be Tzu-Hsi. It is
therefore submitted that the appellant was entitled for additional marks for both
these questions. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant has
drawn attention to few text books to substantiate the same.
7. In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the appellant has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that of this
Court:-
i. Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and others
Vs. Samir Gupta and others, (1983) 4 SCC 309.
ii. Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others, (2018) 2 SCC 357.
iii. Rishal and others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service
Commission and others, (2018) 8 SCC 81.
iv. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (U.P.P.S.C.)
and others Vs. Rahul Singh and others, (2018) 7 SCC
v. Vikesh Kumar Gupta and others Vs. The State of
Rajasthan and others, (2021) 2 SCC 309.
vi. K.Vinopratha Vs. The Teachers Recruitment Board and
others in W.P.(MD) No.22129 of 2022 dated 02.11.2022.
vii. P.Vijayan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by
its Principal Secretary to Government, Chennai and
others in W.A.No.3463 of 2023 dated 04.06.2024.
viii. J.Albert Chandru Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Chennai and others in W.A.No.3464 of 2023 dated
04.06.2024.
ix. T.Jothimalar Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented
by its Principal Secretary to Government, Chennai and
others in W.A.No.3552 of 2023 dated 24.05.2024.
8. The Impugned Order is defended by the learned Special Government
Pleader for the first and second respondents on the ground that the recruitment
rules contains the conditions for correcting the tentative answers.
9. It is submitted that as far as Question No.40 is concerned, as per the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
key answer that was published originally, Option-A was declared by the
Recruitment Board and thereafter as per the recruitment rules, objections were
invited and about 81 candidates had given their objections to the answer to
Question No.40 and based on the same, an Expert Committee was constituted
who have accepted the Option-B in the final answer key and have come to a
conclusion that Option-B was the correct answer.
10. It is submitted that the decision of the Expert Committee is final,
cannot be challenged in the collateral proceedings.
11. That apart, the appellant should have raised an objection before the
Recruitment Board as per the Scheme in the Recruitment Notification and not
before this Court.
12. As far as Question No.109 is concerned, it is submitted that neither
the petitioner nor any person had raised any objection after the key answers
were published and therefore, the contention of the appellant that the options
given to Question No.109 were incorrect at this distant point of time, cannot be
raised by the appellant particularly, after having slept over the matter.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
Government Pleader for the first and second respondents and the learned
Additional Advocate General for the third respondent.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission and others Vs. Rahul Singh and others”, (2018) 7 SCC 254,
held that 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 and when there
are conflicting views, then the Court must bow down to the opinion of the
experts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further underlined the principle that
Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must
exercise great restraint and should over-step their jurisdiction to upset the
opinion of the Courts. In Paragraph Nos.12 to 15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed as under:-
“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
[Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309], the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
Court recommended a system of:
(1) moderation;
(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;
(3) prompt decisions be taken to 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 answers is
better or more correct.
14. In the present case, we find that all the three
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 textbooks. 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.
15. In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the
view that the High Court over stepped its jurisdiction by giving
the directions which amounted to setting aside the decision of
experts in the field. As far as the objection of the Appellant-
Rahul Singh is concerned, after going through the question on
which he raised an objection, we ourselves are of the prima
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
facie view that the answer given by the Commission is correct.”
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No.25 in “Rishal and
others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others”, (2018) 8 SCC
81, has held as under:-
“25. The questions having been deleted from the answers, the
question paper has to be treated as containing the question less
the deleted questions. Redistribution of marks with regard to
deleted questions cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational.
The Commission has adopted a uniform method to deal with all
the candidates looking to the number of the candidates. We are
of the view that all the candidates have been benefited by the
redistributed of marks in accordance with the number of
correct answers which have been given by them. We, thus, do
not find any fault with redistribution of marks of the deleted
marks. The High Court has rightly approved the said
methodology.”
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No.17 in “Kanpur
University, through Vice-Chancellor and others Vs. Samir Gupta and
others”, (1983) 4 SCC 309, has held as under:-
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
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 is demonstrated to be wrong.”
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No.33 in “Ran Vijay Singh
and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others”, (2018) 2 SCC 357, has
held as under:-
“33. The facts of the case before us indicate that in the
first instance the learned Single Judge took it upon himself
to actually ascertain the correctness of the key answers to
seven questions. This was completely beyond his
jurisdiction and as decided by this Court on several
occasions, the exercise carried out was impermissible.
Fortunately, the Division Bench did not repeat the error
but in a sense, endorsed the view of the learned Single
Judge, by not considering the decisions of this Court but
sending four key answers for consideration by a one-man
Expert Committee.”
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, recently in “Vikesh Kumar Gupta and
others Vs. The State of Rajasthan and others”, (2021) 2 SCC 309, held that
Courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic
matters and assessment of the questions by the Courts itself to arrive at correct
answers is not permissible. In Paragraph Nos.16 to 20, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed as under:-
“16. In view of the above law laid down by this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have
examined the correctness of the questions and the answer
key to come to a conclusion different from that of the
expert committee in its judgment dated 12.03.2019
[Bhunda Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj
7416]. Reliance was placed by the appellants on Richal v.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission [Richal v. Rajasthan
Public Service Commission, (2018) 8 SCC 81 : (2018) 2
SCC (L&S) 456]. In the said judgment, this Court
interfered with the selection process only after obtaining
the opinion of an expert committee but did not enter into
the correctness of the questions and answers by itself.
Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for
adjudication of the dispute in this case.
17. A perusal of the above judgments would make it
clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with
expert opinion in academic matters. In any event,
assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at
correct answers is not permissible. The delay in
finalisation of appointments to public posts is mainly
caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections
pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading
effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those
appointed on temporary basis and their claims for
regularisation. The other consequence resulting from
delayed appointments to public posts is the serious
damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient
personnel.
18. The submission made by the respondents that the
appellants are not entitled to any relief as there is
inordinate delay in approaching the Court is not necessary
to be adjudicated upon in view of the findings in the
preceding paragraphs.
19. It is clear from the statement filed by RPSC that
there are vacancies existing which can be utilised for
appointing the appellants. We are not inclined to give any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
direction except leaving it open to RPSC and the State
Government to fill up the existing vacancies from the wait
list in accordance with the merits of the candidates.
20. The selection process which was stalled in view
of the interim order passed by this Court should be
completed within a period of 8 weeks from today. The
Division Bench by its judgment dated 12-3-2019 [Bhunda
Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 7416]
committed an error in recording findings on the
correctness of 05 questions by holding the opinion of the
experts to be wrong. We are not setting aside the judgment
as we are informed that 05 out of 21 appellants therein
have already been appointed and we are not inclined to
upset their appointments.”
19. The Madurai Bench of this Court in “K.Vinopratha Vs. The
Teachers Recruitment Board and others” in W.P.(MD) No.22129 of 2022
dated 02.11.2022, has held in Paragraph Nos.12 to 14 as under:-
“14. “Truth alone triumphs; not falsehood” is the
declaration found in Mundaka Upanishad. “Satyameva
Jayate” is the national motto. Judicial review cannot be
totally ousted in certain circumstances. Where the key
answer is manifestly and patently erroneous, interference
will be warranted. In other words, the court, without
looking at extraneous materials, must be able come to
definite and clear conclusion on the strength of the
materials relied on by the academic experts themselves.
Otherwise, absurd consequences will ensue as a matter of
logical necessity (reductio ad absurdum). Let me
demonstrate. Assume, the question is “who is now the
Prime Minister of India?”. The candidate writes
“Shri.Narendra Modi”. If the key answer is “Shri.Rahul
Gandhi”, will it not be absurd?.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
15. I called upon the learned standing counsel to
make available the basis on which the experts came to the
conclusion that the correct alternative is “confusion” and
not “tension”. It is too obvious from the record that the
experts have arbitrarily taken the stand that the key
answer is correct and does not require change. Even the
extract enclosed in the sealed cover indicated that
“tension” is the right answer. “Contemporary Literary
Critics” by Elmer Borklund published by Palgrave
Macmillan while dealing with Allen Tate reads as follows:
“The true poet, on the other hand, “is
responsible for the virtue proper to him as a
poet, for his special arete for the mastery of a
disciplined language which will not shun the
full report of the reality conveyed to him by
his awareness.” The poet achieves this
condition by means of what Tate calls
“tension”.
the meaning of poetry is its “tension”, the full
organized body of all the extension and
intension that we can find in it.....”
The respondents merely passed on a slim sealed cover.
When I clearly indicated that the material enclosed therein
does not support the key answer but rather supports the
answer given by the writ petitioner, there was no demurrer.
No endeavour was made by the Board to even indicate that
their answer could possibly be right. In the counter
affidavit also, the accent was on questioning the
jurisdiction of the court to entertain the writ petition. The
counter affidavit is silent as to how the key answer is
correct. Respectfully applying the decision of the Hon'ble
Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kanpur University case, I hold that the petitioner has
demonstrated that the key answer to Question No.108 is
manifestly, demonstrably and patently wrong. The court
cannot shut its eyes to what is too obvious and apparent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
Only an ostrich donning judicial robes will hide its head in
the sand.
16. Here is a case the petitioner is a woman
belonging to backward class. Her future is at stake. Her
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India are involved. The paper setters had
shown a wrong answer in the key. The experts have
arbitrarily refused to correct the same while publishing the
final key. I have already given a finding that the experts
not only have not placed any material to show that the key
answer is correct but even the material passed on to the
court shows that the petitioner's answer is correct. The
petitioner should therefore be awarded one more mark.
She was wrongfully denied an extra one mark. The
petitioner will be treated as having scored 98.773003 out
of 150 marks. It is above what was scored by the last
ranked selected candidate. I direct the respondent Board
to send a communication to the Director of School
Education Department mentioning the marks of the writ
petitioner as 98.773003 and by including her in the
appropriate place in the selection list. The Director of
School Education Department shall issue an appointment
order to the petitioner as P.G Assistant (English) without
delay.”
20. The First Bench of this Court in “T.Jothimalar Vs. The State of
Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Chennai and others” in W.A.No.3552 of 2023 dated 24.05.2024, has held in
Paragraph Nos.12 to 14 as under:-
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
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 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.”
21. The First Bench of this Court in “P.Vijayan Vs. The State of Tamil
Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Chennai and
others” in W.A.No.3463 of 2023 dated 04.06.2024, has held in Paragraph
Nos.13 to 15 as under:-
“13. Therefore, it is evident and demonstrated by the
learned counsel for the appellant that the four answers set
by the respondents themselves are incorrect and it has
caused confusion in the minds of the candidates who have
attended the question. In none of the four answers, “6.25
paise” was given, and therefore, the candidates cannot be
expected to write “6.25 paise”. It is also demonstrated by
the learned counsel for the appellant from the text book as
well as the material from the inter-net that one ana is
equal to 6.25 paise.
14. 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.31 is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
concerned, the experts have opined that answer No.A4 is
correct. But, from the text book material furnished by the
appellant, it is clear that one ana is equal to 6.25 paise
and it was not given as one of the optional answers to
question No.31 set by the respondents. Therefore, the
conclusion reached by the experts that A4 is the correct
answer to the question No.31 cannot be accepted and it is
proved to be incorrect.
15. It is well settled that this Court has no expertise
to examine the correctness or otherwise of the answer set
by the respondents. For this purpose, an expert was
constituted. However, the expert opinion need not be
always relied on as a gospel truth by this Court. This is
more so that the appellant placed heavy reliance on the
approved text book which was also enclosed in the typed
set of papers along with the memorandum of writ appeal.
It is needless to mention that the book has been approved
by the Tamil Nadu Open University and the candidates,
including the appellant, who appeared for the competitive
examination must have relied on the same. Even
otherwise, on going through the question No.31 and the
answers made available from the text book material as
well as internet, we feel that the appellant has to be
awarded one more mark for having attended question
No.31. Merely because the experts have opined the correct
answer as A4, we need not blindly accept it knowing full
well that it is wrong and dismiss the appeal of the
appellant.”
22. The First Bench of this Court in “J.Albert Chandru Vs. The State
of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government,
Chennai and others” in W.A.No.3464 of 2023 dated 04.06.2024, has held in
Paragraph Nos.13 to 15 as under:-
“13. Therefore, it is evident and demonstrated by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
learned counsel for the appellant that the conclusion
reached by the experts is based on the text book. Similarly,
the answer provided by the appellant is also based on the
text book reference. As mentioned above, the IQ of a slow
learner or a border line or dull student is categorised as
75 to 90 and it can also be taken into account by this
Court to award one more mark to the appellant.
14. 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.27 is
concerned, the experts have opined that answer No.A1 is
correct. But, from the text book material furnished by the
appellant, it is clear that A2 is also a correct answer and
therefore, for having marked A2, the appellant deserves to
be awarded one more mark.
15. It is well settled that this Court has no expertise
to examine the correctness or otherwise of the answer set
by the respondents. For this purpose, an expert was
constituted. However, the appellant placed heavy reliance
on the text book which was also enclosed in the typed set
of papers along with the memorandum of grounds of writ
appeal. Even otherwise, on going through the question
No.27 and the answers made available from the text book
material, we are of the opinion that the appellant has to be
awarded one more mark for having marked A2 as the
correct answer. Merely because the experts have opined
the correct answer as A1, we need not blindly accept it
knowing fully well that it is wrong and dismiss the appeal
of the appellant.”
23. By an order dated 02.12.2024, we have asked the respondents to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
produce the report of the Expert Committee insofar as Question No.40 is
concerned. The Expert Committee have accepted Option-B as the final answer
key and have come to a conclusion that Option-B was the correct answer. The
Expert Committee have thus, accepted that the correct answer was Option-B
namely “Muhammed of Ghazini” and based on the views expressed in
“Advanced Study in the History of Medieval India (Vol.I : 1000-1526 A.D.)”
1979-2003 Edition, Authored by Mr.J.L.Mehta, published by M/s.Sterling
Publishers Private Limited, New Delhi – 110 020.
24. The recruitment notification itself stipulates that syllabus for 9
subjects were published in Gazette No.122 dated 25.02.2021 and that the
syllabus can be downloaded from the TRB's official website, www.trb.tn.gov.in.
25. It is noticed that the tentative key answers were published on
19.02.2022 and thereafter, 81 candidates had given their objections to the
answer to Question No.40. After receipt of 81 objections to the answer in the
tentative key answer to Question No.40, it was resolved by the Expert
Committee on 18.05.2014 that Option-B was the correct answer. Therefore, we
cannot sit in Judgment over the correctness of the answer recognized by the
Expert Committee in terms of the modalities prescribed in the Recruitment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
Notification. Therefore, we cannot award additional marks to the appellant for
Question No.40.
26. On the same principle, the contentions of the appellant to award
additional/extra marks for Question No.109 in Part B also cannot be
countenanced, as we cannot sit in appeal over the key answer published after
the examinations were conducted. Therefore, no judicial review is permissible
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
27. The appellant should have been vigilent and should have responded
to the key answers published by the Recruitment Board to persuade the experts
to look into the same. Further, even if the 4 options to Question No.109 in Part
B were incorrect, all the candidates would have been given additional marks.
Therefore, the appellant would have got no advantage even if the contention of
the appellant regarding the correct answer to Question No.109 in Part B was
accepted. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
28. However, before parting, we would like to make a special mention
regarding the flawed method followed by the Recruitment Board.
29. It is noticed that there are different views of different authors which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
lead the candidates to give different answers. Therefore, there should be
standardized reading materials and texts which should be published in the
website for candidates to prepare and participate in these competitive
examinations, so that there is no scope for confusion regarding the correct
answers.
30. We therefore direct the Tamil Nadu Teachers Recruitment Board
(TNTRB) to device a standard syllabus and prescribe text books to enable the
candidates to effectively participate in these competitive examinations to avoid
post facto corrections to the key answers by referring the objections to the
experts. This adhocism is to be avoided.
31. For the foregoing discussion, this Writ Appeal is liable to be
dismissed on merits. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[R.S.K., J.] [C.S.N., J.]
29.04.2025
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
arb
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
To:
1.The Principal Secretary
to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
C.SARAVANAN, J.
arb
Pre-Delivery Judgment in W.A.No.3486 of 2024
29.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 08:47:08 pm )
