Madras High Court
S.Sakthivel vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 March, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
W.P.No.4680 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.03.2025
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.4680 of 2025 &
W.M.P.No.5185 of 2025
S.Sakthivel ... Petitioner
-Versus-
1.State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Director General of Police of Tamil Nadu,
Head of Police Force,
Tamil Nadu Police Headquarters,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3.Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to award marks in
respect of question Nos.7, 24 & 91 in respect of Question Booklet series B,
which was correctly answered by the petitioner herein and consequently direct
the respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
1 of 42
W.P.No.4680 of 2025
(Armed Reserve) within a time stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Ravikumar
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan,
1&2 Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mrs.Vijaya Devi,
Government Advocate
For Respondent 3 : Mrs.D.Sowmi Dattan
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a mandamus seeking a
direction against the third respondent, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services
Recruitment Board at Chennai to grant marks to the petitioner in respect of
question Nos.7, 24 and 91 in respect of Question Booklet series B. The
petitioner claims that the petitioner had given correct answers for the
aforementioned questions and therefore, he claims that he should have been
granted ½ mark for each question, which would increase the total marks of the
petitioner by another 1 ½ marks.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated
by the petitioner that he is now serving as Grade I Traffic Police Constable in
Traffic Investigation Wing at Adyar. It had been stated that a notification had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
2 of 42
been issued by the third respondent in Notification No.1 of 2023 dated
05.05.2023 inviting online applications for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police
including Taluk, Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police. The
commencement of the filing of online application was 01.06.2023 and the last
date of submission of online application was 30.06.2023.
3. The selection process involved written exams in two parts, the first part
being the Tamil language eligibility test and second part being the main written
examination. This would be followed by certificate verification for the Police
Departmental Quota. There would also be an endurance test and finally, there
would a viva-voce. After the completion of the recruitment process, the
selection list is drawn based on the total marks obtained in the main written
examination and the viva voce for the department candidates. These candidates
like the petitioner are exempted from physical efficiency test except endurance
test. Thereafter, there will be a medical examination followed by the police
verification.
4. The petitioner appeared for the preliminary and main examinations on
26.08.2023 and 27.08.2023 respectively. He claims that he had secured 71.5
marks out of 85 marks. The petitioner then participated in the physical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
3 of 42
endurance test on 07.11.2023. He was then called upon to attend viva voce. He
claims that he had obtained 9.75 marks out of 10 marks in the viva voce, which
was conducted on 08.01.2024. The petitioner claims that he had obtained 81.25
marks out of 100 marks.
5. The petitioner claims that he had raised objections by letter dated
29.09.2023 for the key answers published for the preliminary examination.
After examining the objections raised by the various candidates, a final answer
key was published by the third respondent in which there were certain
amendments made to the initially published key answers. It was found that the
answer key for the three questions, for which the petitioner had raised
objections, were not corrected. Thereafter, the third respondent published the
list of candidates, who had been provisionally selected and who had been
undergone medical examination and the police verification. The petitioner was
also provisionally selected. The petitioner then gave a representation on
29.09.2023 seeking additional marks relating to question Nos.7, 24 and 91 in
the booklet categorised as B.
6. The petitioner claims that the answers he had given for those three
questions alone are correct and the answers as projected by the respondents are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
4 of 42
not correct. He therefore claims that his answer sheet should be revised and he
must be granted another 1 ½ marks for the said three questions, namely
question Nos.7, 24 and 91 in the booklet series B. It is under those
circumstances seeking revision of the answers, the present writ petition has
been filed.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent wherein it
had been stated that the petitioner had participated in the recruitment process
and had obtained a total of 81.25 marks in both the written examination and in
the viva voce. He had been selected for the post of Sub Inspector of Police in
the category of Armed Reserve in accordance with the provisional selection list,
which was published on 29.01.2024. The cut off mark was 81.25 for the men
belonging to BC community like the petitioner herein. Thereafter, a series of
writ petitions came to be filed in W.P.No.11855 of 2024 batch, and an order
was passed on 21.06.2024, and consequent to such order, the third respondent
revised the selection list of candidates at every stage of the selection process in
accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurav
Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.23223 of
2018 and State of Tamil Nadu v. K.Shobana in Civil Appeal Nos.3745 – 3754
of 2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
5 of 42
8. The revised final provisional list was published on 03.10.2024. The cut
off mark for the men belonging to BC community was increased and revised to
81.50. The petitioner, having obtained 81.25 marks, was found ineligible to be
brought in the Armed Reserve Category. Therefore, he was brought under the
Tamil Nadu Special Police category in the final provisional selection list. It had
been contended that the petitioner had then filed the present writ petition
contending that the answers for question Nos.7, 24 and 91 in the booklet series
B have to be revisited and the answers given by the petitioner are re-examined.
According to the petitioner, his answers are correct and therefore, he must get
an additional 1 ½ marks, which would increase his total marks from 81.25 to
82.75 and therefore, he would move upwards to the other category and not be
retained in the Tamil Nadu Special Police category.
9. In the counter affidavit, a detailed explanation has been given with
respect to the three questions contested by the petitioner. With respect to each
of the three questions namely question Nos.7, 24 and 91 in the Booklet series B,
the respondents have stated the opinion of the Committee and also the sources
from which such opinion was given by the Committee. They had reiterated that
the answers as projected by the Expert Committee alone are correct. They
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
6 of 42
justified the answers given by the Expert Committee and stated that the
petitioner cannot seek revision of his marks. The respondents have stated that
the writ petition should be dismissed.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel
for the third respondent.
11. The only issue to be examined is the stand of the petitioner that he
had correctly answered the three questions namely question Nos.7, 24 and 91 in
the booklet series B in the preliminary examination for the post of Sub
Inspector of Police. The petitioner is already serving as Grade-I, Traffic Police
Constable and he had been permitted to participate in the recruitment process
and he had written the preliminary and main examinations. He had also been
selected as Sub Inspector of Police. Initially he was placed in the list for Sub
Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve and later owing to a series of directions
issued by this Court and placing their reliance on the guidelines given by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents revised the selection list and placed the
petitioner in Sub Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Special Police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
7 of 42
12. After the result had been declared, the petitioner claims that there
should be a re-visitation of the answers given by the Expert Committee by
comparing the same with the answers given by him with respect to the
aforementioned three questions namely question Nos.7, 24 and 91 as projected
in Booklet series B, which the petitioner had answered.
13. The scope of this court to convert itself as an expert over and above
an Expert Committee had been examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It
must be placed on record that the judgments in this regard had not been placed
either by the petitioner or on behalf of the third respondent.
14. In (2010) 8 SCC 372, Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr.H.L.Ramesh and
Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had examined the interference by the High
Court with the answers as projected by the Expert Committee. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court had used the word “impermissiblity” of such interference. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court further stated that the court should show deference to
the recommendations of the Expert Committee, particularly when no mala fide
had been alleged against the experts constituting the selection committee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
8 of 42
15. The opinion of the experts had been given in the counter affidavit and
the petitioner had not chosen to file any reply alleging any mala fide on the part
of the Expert Committee in this case. The petitioner only claims that the
answers as projected by him alone are correct and the answers as projected by
the Expert Committee are not correct. The petitioner relies on various reference
materials to state that the answers given by him are correct. In the counter
affidavit, the reference materials relied on by the Expert Committee have been
stated. The petitioner had not filed any reply affidavit questioning the
correctness of the reference materials as relied on by the Expert Committee.
The learned counsel had also not advanced any arguments on that ground.
16. The learned counsel had only advanced arguments projecting the
reference materials as instructed by the petitioner which according to the
petitioner were the correct reference materials and contended that on that basis
alone the answers should have been examined.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Basavaiah (Dr.) case referred to
supra, had examined the appointment of Readers in Sericulture in the year 1999
on the basis of the qualifications possessed by the appellants therein. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter examined the notification under which the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
9 of 42
selection process was conducted. As in this case, an Expert Committee had
been constituted by the University. Thereafter, it had been stated that the
Committee had scrutinised the qualification, experience and the works
published by the candidates and had made recommendations in favour of their
appointments. The Supreme Court finally stated as follows:
“21. It is the settled legal position that the courts
have to show deference and consideration to the
recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of
distinguished experts in the field. In the instant case,
experts had evaluated the qualification, experience and
published work of the appellants and thereafter
recommendations for their appointments were made. The
Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have sat as
an appellate court on the recommendations made by the
country's leading experts in the field of Sericulture.”
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also examined an earlier case
wherein judgment was rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court,
reported in AIR 1965 SC 491, The University of Mysore v. C.D.Govinda Rao.
Even the Constitution Bench unanimously held that normally the courts should
be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the Experts, particularly
when there is no allegation of mala fides against the Experts who had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
10 of 42
constituted the Selection Board. Paragraph 22 of the Judgment is extracted
hereunder:
“22. A similar controversy arose about 45 years ago
regarding appointment of Anniah Gowda to the post of
Research Reader in English in the Central College,
Bangalore, in the case of The University of Mysore and
Another v. C.D.Govinda Rao and Another, AIR 1965 SC
491, in which the Constitution Bench unanimously held that
normally the Courts should be slow to interfere with the
opinions expressed by the experts particularly in a case
when there is no allegation of mala fides against the experts
who had constituted the Selection Board. The court further
observed that it would normally be wise and safe for the
courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to the
experts who are more familiar with the problems they face
than the courts generally can be.”
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further placed reference to the another
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1979) 2 SCC 339,
M.C.Gupta (Dr.) v. Dr.Arun Kumar Gupta and had extracted paragraph No.7
of the said judgment which is extracted hereunder:
“7. ....When selection is made by the Commission
aided and advised by experts having technical experience
and high academic qualifications in the specialist field,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
11 of 42
probing teaching research experience in technical subjects,
the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion
expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala
fides against them. It would normally be prudent and safe
for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to
experts who are more familiar with the problems they face
than the Courts generally can be..."
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had further relied on the judgment
reported in (1980) 3 SCC 418, J.P.Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University,
wherein again it had been observed that the Court should not substitute its
judgment for that of the academicians. Paragraph 17 of the said judgment is as
follows:
“17. Rulings of this Court were cited before us to
hammer home the point that the court should not substitute
its judgment for that of academicians when the dispute
relates to educational affairs. While there is no absolute
ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to
dislodge decisions of academic bodies."
21. A further reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27, Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
12 of 42
Sheth where again it had been observed that the Court should be extremely
reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in
relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional
men possessing technical expertise and rich experience. The relevant paragraph
No.29 is as follows:
“29. ... As has been repeatedly pointed out by this
Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute
its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in
relation to academic matters in preference to those
formulated by professional men possessing technical
expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working
of educational institutions and the departments controlling
them."
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further placed reliance on another
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1990) 2 SCC 746,
Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal, where again the same dictum had
been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
23. Further in (1992) 2 SCC 220, Bhushan Uttam Khare v. B.J.Medical
College, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had placed reliance on the dictum laid
down by the Constitution Bench judgment in University of Mysore case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
13 of 42
referred supra.
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had further placed reliance on further
precedents judgments in paragraph Nos.30 to 37 which are as follows:
“30. In (1990) 1 SCC 305, Dalpat Abashab Solunke
& Others v. Dr. B.S.Mahajan & Others, the court in
somewhat similar matter observed thus:
"12. ...It is needless to emphasise
that it is not the function of the court to
hear appeals over the decisions of the
Selection Committees and to scrutinize the
relative merits of the candidates. Whether
a candidate is fit for a particular post or
not has to be decided by the duly
constituted Selection Committee which has
the expertise on the subject. The court has
no such expertise. The decision of the
Selection Committee can be interfered
with only on limited grounds, such as
illegality or patent material irregularity in
the constitution of the Committee or its
procedure vitiating the selection, or
proved mala fides affecting the selection
etc. It is not disputed that in the present
case the University had constituted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
14 of 42
Committee in due compliance with the
relevant statutes. The Committee consisted
of experts and it selected the candidates
after going through all the relevant
material before it. In sitting in appeal over
the selection so made and in setting it
aside on the ground of the so called
comparative merits of the candidates as
assessed by the court, the High Court went
wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction."
31. In (1994) 1 SCC 169, Chancellor & Another
etc. v. Dr. Bijayananda Kar & Others, the court observed
thus:
"9. This Court has repeatedly held
that the decisions of the academic
authorities should not ordinarily be
interfered with by the courts. Whether a
candidate fulfils the requisite
qualifications or not is a matter which
should be entirely left to be decided by the
academic bodies and the concerned
selection committees which invariably
consist of experts on the subjects relevant
to the selection."
32. In (2000) 3 SCC 59, J & K State Board of
Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik & Others, the court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
15 of 42
while stressing on the importance of the functions of the
expert body observed that the expert body consisted of
persons coming from different walks of life who were
engaged in or interested in the field of education and had
wide experience and were entrusted with the duty of
maintaining higher standards of education. The decision of
such an expert body should be given due weightage by
courts.
33. In (2001) 5 SCC 486, Dental Council of India v.
Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust, the court reminded the
High Courts that the court's jurisdiction to interfere with
the discretion exercised by the expert body is extremely
limited.
34. In (2001) 8 SCC 427, Medical Council of India
v. Sarang, the court again reiterated the legal principle
that the court should not normally interfere or interpret the
rules and should instead leave the matter to the experts in
the field.
35. In (2008) 14 SCC 306, B.C.Mylarappa v.
Dr.R.Venkatasubbaiah, the court again reiterated legal
principles and observed regarding importance of the
recommendations made by the Expert Committees.
36. In (2008) 9 SCC 284, Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.)
v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, the court reminded
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
16 of 42
that it is not appropriate for the Supreme Court to sit in
appeal over the opinion of the experts.
37. In (2009) 11 SCC 726, All India Council for
Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan, again
the legal position has been reiterated that it is a rule of
prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions
of academic bodies.”
25. Finally in paragraph No.38, the legal position had been reiterated,
The said paragraph is as follows:
“35. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to
reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the
academic matters, the courts have a very limited role
particularly when no mala fide has been alleged against
the experts constituting the selection committee. It would
normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to
leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a
matter of principle, the courts should never make an
endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the
experts. The courts must realize and appreciate its
constraints and limitations in academic matters.”
26. In paragraph No.39, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had frowned upon
the High Court to have ignored the consistent legal position. Paragraph No.39 is
as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
17 of 42
“39. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has
ignored the consistent legal position. They were expected
to abide by the discipline of the precedents of the courts.
Consequently, we are constrained to set aside the
impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court and restore the judgment of the Single Judge of the
High Court.”
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated that the High Courts have to
abide by the discipline of the principles of the Courts. The precedents of the
Courts very clearly and categorically stated that the High Court cannot
substitute itself for an expert and when there is no mala fide alleged against the
Committee constituted by Experts, their opinion must be upheld and no other
opinion should be examined or stated by the court.
28. This position of law had again been examined by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in (2018) 2 SCC 357, Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had examined the
scope of judicial review in re-evaluation and examination of the correctness of
the key answers. The principles required to be followed have been reiterated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even in that particular case, an issue was raised
about the correctness of the key answers as given by the Expert Committee. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:
18. A complete hands-off or no-interference
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
18 of 42
approach was neither suggested in Mukesh Thakur
[(2010) 6 SCC 759] nor has it been suggested in any
other decision of this Court – the case law developed over
the years admits of interference in the results of an
examination but in rare and exceptional situations and to
a very limited extent.
19. In (1983) 4 SCC 309, Kanpur University v.
Samir Gupta, this Court took the view that
“16. …. 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.”
In other words, the onus is on the candidate to clearly
demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect and that too
without any inferential process or reasoning. The burden
on the candidate is therefore rather heavy and the
constitutional courts must be extremely cautious in
entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of a key
answer. To prevent such challenges, this Court
recommended a few steps to be taken by the examination
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
19 of 42
authorities and among them are: (i) Establishing a system
of moderation; (ii) Avoid any ambiguity in the questions,
including those that might be caused by translation; and
(iii) Prompt decision be taken to exclude the suspect
question and no marks be assigned to it.
20. (1984) 4 SCC 27, Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh
BhupeshKumar Sheth is perhaps the leading case on the
subject and concerned itself with Regulation 104 of the
Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education Boards Regulations, 1977 which reads:
“104. Verification of marks obtained by a
candidate in a subject.—(1) Any candidate who
has appeared at the Higher Secondary
Certificate examination may apply to the
Divisional Secretary for verification of marks in
any particular subject. The verification will be
restricted to checking whether all the answers
have been examined and that there has been no
mistake in the totalling of marks for each
question in that subject and transferring marks
correctly on the first cover page of the answer
book and whether the supplements attached to
the answer book mentioned by the candidate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
20 of 42
are intact. No revaluation of the answer book
or supplements shall be done.
(2) Such an application must be made by
the candidate through the head of the junior
college which presented him for the
examination, within two weeks of the
declaration of the examination results and must
be accompanied by a fee of Rs 10 for each
subject.
(3) No candidate shall claim, or be
entitled to revaluation of his answers or
disclosure or inspection of the answer books or
other documents as these are treated by the
Divisional Board as most confidential.”
21. The question before this Court was: Whether,
under law, a candidate has a right to demand an
inspection, verification and revaluation of answer books
and whether the statutory regulations framed by the
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education governing the subject insofar as
they categorically state that there shall be no such right
can be said to be ultra vires, unreasonable and void.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
21 of 42
22. This Court noted that the Bombay High Court,
while dealing with a batch of 39 writ petitions, divided
them into two groups: (i) Cases where a right of
inspection of the answer sheets was claimed; (ii) Cases
where a right of inspection and re-evaluation of answer
sheets was claimed. With regard to the first group, the
High Court held the above Regulation 104(3) as
unreasonable and void and directed the concerned Board
to allow inspection of the answer sheets. With regard to
the second group of cases, it was held that the above
Regulation 104(1) was void, illegal and manifestly
unreasonable and therefore directed that the facility of
re- evaluation should be allowed to those examinees who
had applied for it.
23. In appeal against the decision of the High
Court, it was held by this Court that the principles of
natural justice are not applicable in such cases. It was
held that:
“12. … The principles of natural justice
cannot be extended beyond reasonable and
rational limits and cannot be carried to such
absurd lengths as to make it necessary that
candidates who have taken a public
examination should be allowed to participate in
the process of evaluation of their performances
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
22 of 42
or to verify the correctness of the evaluation
made by the examiners by themselves
conducting an inspection of the answer books
and determining whether there has been a
proper and fair valuation of the answers by the
examiners.”
24. On the validity of the Regulations, this Court
held that they were not illegal or unreasonable or ultra
vires the rule making power conferred by statute. It was
then said:
“16. … The Court cannot sit in
judgment over the wisdom of the policy
evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate
regulation-making body. It may be a wise
policy which will fully effectuate the purpose
of the enactment or it may be lacking in
effectiveness and hence calling for revision
and improvement. But any drawbacks in the
policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will
not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot
strike it down on the ground that, in its
opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but
is even a foolish one, and that it will not really
serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The
Legislature and its delegate are the sole
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
23 of 42
repositories of the power to decide what policy
should be pursued in relation to matters
covered by the Act and there is no scope for
interference by the Court unless the particular
provision impugned before it can be said to
suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of
its being wholly beyond the scope of the
regulation-making power or its being
inconsistent with any of the provisions of the
parent enactment or in violation of any of the
limitations imposed by the Constitution. None
of these vitiating factors are shown to exist in
the present case…..”.
It was also noted by this Court that:
“22. … the High Court has ignored the
cardinal principle that it is not within the
legitimate domain of the Court to determine
whether the purpose of a statute can be served
better by adopting any policy different from
what has been laid down by the Legislature or
its delegate and to strike down as unreasonable
a bye-law (assuming for the purpose of
discussion that the impugned regulation is a
bye-law) merely on the ground that the policy
enunciated therein does not meet with the
approval of the Court in regard to its
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
24 of 42
efficaciousness for implementation of the object
and purposes of the Act.”
25. Upholding the validity of Regulation 104, this
Court then proceeded on the basis of the plain and simple
language of the Regulation to hold that
“20. … The right of verification
conferred by clause (1) is subject to the
limitation contained in the same clause that no
revaluation of the answer books or supplements
shall be done and the further
restriction imposed by clause (3), prohibiting
disclosure or inspection of the answer books.”
This Court then concluded the discussion by observing:
“29. … As has been repeatedly pointed
out by this Court, the Court should be
extremely reluctant to substitute its own views
as to what is wise, prudent and proper in
relation to academic matters in preference to
those formulated by professional men
possessing technical expertise and rich
experience of actual day-to-day working of
educational institutions and the departments
controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for
the Court to make a pedantic and purely
idealistic approach to the problems of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
25 of 42
nature, isolated from the actual realities and
grass root problems involved in the working of
the system and unmindful of the consequences
which would emanate if a purely idealistic
view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be
propounded. It is equally important that the
Court should also, as far as possible, avoid
any decision or interpretation of a statutory
provision, rule or bye-law which would bring
about the result of rendering the system
unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that
this principle has not been adequately kept in
mind by the High Court while deciding the
instant case.”
26. In (2004) 6 SCC 714, Pramod Kumar
Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service
Commission, the question under consideration was
whether the High Court was right in directing re-
evaluation of the answer book of a candidate in the
absence of any provision entitling the candidate to ask for
re-evaluation. This Court noted that there was no
provision in the concerned Rules for re-evaluation but
only a provision for scrutiny of the answer book
“wherein the answer-books are seen for
the purpose of checking whether all the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
26 of 42
answers given by a candidate have been
examined and whether there has been any
mistake in the totalling of marks of each
question and noting them correctly on the first
cover page of the answer-book.”
This Court reiterated the conclusion in (1984) 4 SCC 27,
Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth that
“7. … in the absence of a specific
provision conferring a right upon an examinee
to have his answer-books re- evaluated, no
such direction can be issued.”
27. The principle laid down by this Court in
Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth was affirmed in W.B.
Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das
and it was reiterated that there must be finality attached
to the result of a public examination and in the absence of
a statutory provision re-evaluation of answer scripts
cannot be permitted and that it could be done only in
exceptional cases and as a rarity. Reference was also
made to (2004) 6 SCC 714, Pramod Kumar Srivastava v.
Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 13 SCC 383,
Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda
and (2007) 1 SCC 603, Board of Secondary Education v.
D.Suvankar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
27 of 42
28. The facts in (2014) 14 SCC 523, Central Board
of Secondary Education v. Khushboo Shrivastava are
rather interesting. The respondent was a candidate in the
All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination,
2007 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary
Education (for short “the CBSE”). Soon after the results
of the examination were declared, she applied for re-
evaluation of her answer sheets. The CBSE declined her
request since there was no provision for this. She then
filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court and the
learned Single Judge called for her answer sheets and on
a perusal thereof and on comparing her answers with the
model or key answers concluded that she deserved an
additional two marks. The view of the learned Single
Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High
Court.
29. In appeal, this Court in (2014) 14 SCC 523,
Khushboo Shrivastava case, set aside the decision of the
High Court and reiterating the view already expressed by
this Court from time to time and allowing the appeal of
the CBSE it was held:
“9. We find that a three-Judge Bench of
this Court in (2004) 6 SCC 714, Pramod
Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service
Commission has clearly held relying on (1984)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
28 of 42
4 SCC 27, Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary Education v. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth that in the absence of
any provision for the re-evaluation of answer
books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an
examination has any right to claim or ask for
re-evaluation of his marks. The decision in
(2004) 6 SCC 714, Pramod Kumar Srivastava
v. Bihar Public Service Commission was
followed by another three-Judge Bench of this
Court in (2004) 13 SCC 383, Board of
Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan
Panda in which the direction of the High Court
for re- evaluation of answer books of all the
examinees securing 90% or above marks was
held to be unsustainable in law because the
regulations of the Board of Secondary
Education, Orissa, which conducted the
examination, did not make any provision for
re- evaluation of answer books in the rules.
10. In the present case, the bye-laws of
the All India Pre- Medical/Pre-Dental
Entrance Examination, 2007 conducted by the
CBSE did not provide for re-examination or re-
evaluation of answer sheets. Hence, the
appellants could not have allowed such re-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
29 of 42
examination or re-evaluation on the
representation of Respondent 1 and
accordingly rejected the representation
of Respondent 1 for re-examination/re-
evaluation of her answer sheets......
11. In our considered opinion, neither
the learned Single Judge nor the Division
Bench of the High Court could have substituted
his/its own views for that of the examiners and
awarded two additional marks to Respondent 1
for the two answers in exercise of powers of
judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution as these are purely academic
matters. .....”
29. Finally in paragraph Nos.30.3, 30.4 and 30.5, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held as follows:
“30.3. 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;
30.4. The Court should presume the correctness of
the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and
30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to
the examination authority rather than to the candidate.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
30 of 42
30. An examination of the aforementioned position of law as stated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court would show that the Court should presume the
correctness of the key answers and proceed on that presumption. It must also be
kept in mind that the Court must understand that it has no expertise in the
academic matters and it would be prudent that such matters are best left to the
academicians. It had been further held that in the event of a doubt, the benefit
should go to the Examination Authority rather than to the candidate. Further in
paragraph No.31, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:
“31. On our part we may add that sympathy or
compassion does not play any role in the matter of
directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer
sheet. If an error is committed by the examination
authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The
entire examination process does not deserve to be
derailed only because some candidates are disappointed
or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been
caused to them by an erroneous question or an
erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though
some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since
mathematical precision is not always possible. This
Court has shown one way out of an impasse – exclude
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
31 of 42
the suspect or offending question.”
31. It is thus seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also reiterated that
sympathy or compassion does not play any role in any matter of directing or not
directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. It had been very categorically stated
that despite several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there are
interferences by the Courts in the result of examination and such interference
had been declared as unwarranted by the Supreme Court. It had been held as
follows in paragraph 32:
“32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several
decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed
above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of
examinations. This places the examination authorities in an
unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not
the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes
prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of
uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a
tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must
not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in
equally great efforts to successfully conduct an
examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some
lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the
internal checks and balances put in place by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
32 of 42
examination authorities before interfering with the efforts
put in by the candidates who have successfully participated
in the examination and the examination authorities. The
present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of
such interference where there is no finality to the result of
the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart
from the examination authorities even the candidates are
left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result
of the examination – whether they have passed or not;
whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the
Court; whether they will get admission in a college or
University or not; and whether they will get recruited or
not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to
anybody’s advantage and such a state of uncertainty results
in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and
larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.”
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated that such a re-scrutiny of the
examination would put the Examination Authority in unenviable position pf
coming under scrutiny and not the candidates.
33. The position of law is clear. It cannot be interpreted otherwise.
34. The learned counsel for the petitioner however placed reliance on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
33 of 42
judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1983 SC 1230, Kanpur
Univeristy through Vice Chancellor v. Samir Gupta and Others. This
judgment had been referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2018) 2 SCC
357, Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others and
after examining the dictum laid therein and also the dictum in a series of other
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, had finally reduced the proposition of
law and held that the Court should presume the correctness of the key answers
as projected by the Expert Committee and proceed on that presumption alone.
35. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Division
Bench Judgment of this Court reported in (2011) 256 MLJ 653, Director,
Department of Government Examination and Others v. R.Neethushanmugi.
The learned counsel drew specific reference to paragraph No. 18 and 19 which
are as follows:
“18. Having regard to our finding, we are of the
considered view that the directions of the Division Bench
to award full five marks to all the candidates, who have
filed writ petitions, should be understood only to award
proportionate marks depending upon the nature of answer
given by each of the candidates, who have filed writ
petitions, as directed by the learned single Judge in
paragraph No. 40 of the order in the writ petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
34 of 42
19. With regard to the submission of the learned
Additional Advocate General that when there is a specific
provision for application for revaluation, some of the
candidates who have not even applied for revaluation
cannot be given the benefit of revaluation on the orders of
the Court directly. In our opinion, such a contention
cannot be accepted. When most of the candidates who have
approached this Court had filed applications for
revaluation and had been given the said benefit of
revaluation, similar benefit should also be extended to the
other candidates, as this Court had directed such
revaluation only on the ground that the key answer was
wrong and for the fault of the official Respondents, the
candidates should not be penalised. That apart, the order
directing revaluation was not set aside by the Division
Bench, but only the same was modified to the extent of
directing the grant of full five marks, instead of the marks
based on the revaluation. At this stage, the State cannot be
allowed to raise this point in the review applications. The
direction for revaluation in respect of all the candidates,
even for some of the candidates who have not applied for
revaluation, is granted only on the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case and it shall not be quoted as a
precedent in any other case.
36. It must be stated with due respect that the judgment as laid down by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
35 of 42
the Hon'ble Supreme Court except for the judgment in (2009) 11 SCC 726, All
India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan, wherein
again it had been stated that the Court should not substitute its conclusion for
the view of the experts, had not been referred. The Division Bench in the
aforementioned paragraphs had stated that the directions to grant full 5 marks to
all the candidates who had filed the writ petition should be understood to have
been granted only owing to the peculiar facts of the case. The dictum laid down
that there must be a presumption that the answers as provided by the
respondents are correct had not been examined by the Division Bench in the
judgment referred supra.
37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had referred to a catena of judgments
commencing with the Constitution Bench Judgment of the year 1965 and
moving further down and had categorically held that the answers as projected
by the Expert Committee alone should be presumed to be correct.
38. Though arguments were advanced by the learned counsel to project
that the answers as given by the petitioner are correct, it must also be stated that
the petitioner has not taken this ground at the initial stage. He had been initially
selected to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve. He was quite
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
36 of 42
happy with such selection. Thereafter owing to the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the guidelines laid therein, the respondents have revised the
cut off mark for men belonging to BC community and the petitioner found
himself selected as Sub Inspector of Police but in Tamil Nadu Special Police. It
is only at that stage, he had raised these objections.
39. It is clear that the petitioner had waited as fence sitter to see where he
would be posted and thereafter had raised his objections. These objections are
untenable and cannot be appreciated. Though the learned counsel had advanced
arguments placing reliance on a series of reference materials, admittedly, no
arguments had been advanced that the reference materials as projected by the
Expert Committee are wrong. Those reference materials had been very clearly
and categorically given in the counter affidavit. No reply affidavit has been
filed by the petitioner challenging those reference materials.
40. When there are two possible answers, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
very clearly stated that the answer key as projected by the Expert Committee
alone must be taken to be correct. The Court has to give due deference to the
dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
37 of 42
41. The petitioner is already in uniformed service. He had now applied
and has been selected to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. If he is sincere in
his duty and has respect for the uniform which he wears, and the rank which he
adorns, he must discharge his duty irrespective of the nature of the work
assigned to him.
42. Even at the entrance stage, the petitioner cannot claim as a right to be
considered in this particular category or that particular category. If he had
grievances, the best option for him is to resign the post and walk away and
engage himself in any other avocation. He cannot enter into a system and find
faults with the system at the entry level. It is not becoming of a uniformed
personnel to raise this issue at this late stage and claim that he should be given
priority whatever be the costs. When he had obtained 81.25 marks which was
exactly just sufficient to be considered for the post of Sub Inspector of Police,
Armed Reserve, he had kept quite. He had not raised objections about these
three questions specifically. He had not claimed that marks should have been
given to him for those three questions. Later under the guidelines issued by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the directions of this Court, when the respondents
had revisited the selection list and had placed the petitioner in Sub Inspector of
Police, Tamil Nadu Special Police, the petitioner had raised these objections
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
38 of 42
and had filed the present writ petition.
43. The attitude of the petitioner is unbecoming of a Police personnel. If
this the attitude even before entering the service as Sub Inspector Police, it
cannot be visualised as to what attitude he would develop during the course of
his service in future.
44. I am not inclined to concur with any of the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. I am not inclined to examine whether the
answers projected by the petitioner are correct. I am inclined to follow the
dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the answers projected by
the Expert Committee are correct and must be presumed to be correct and the
court should proceed on such presumption made. To reiterate, the petitioner has
not alleged any mala fide on the part of the Expert Committee. No reply
affidavit has been filed on that line. No arguments have been advanced raising
such a ground.
45. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
39 of 42
05.03.2025
nl
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1.The Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Director General of Police of Tamil Nadu,
Head of Police Force,
Tamil Nadu Police Headquarters,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
3.Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus,
Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
40 of 42
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
nl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
41 of 42
05.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 01:41:30 pm )
42 of 42
