Madras High Court
Dr.A.G.Rajasri vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 March, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 07.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No. 6491 of 2025
And
W.M.P.No. 7149 of 2025
Dr.A.G.Rajasri ... Petitioner
..Vs..
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. Medical Services Recruitment Board (MRB)
Rep. By its Member Secretary
7th Floor, DMS Buildings
No.359, Anna Salai, Teynampet
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:46 pm )
2
for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of
the second respondent dated 02.02.2025 stating that since the petitioner has
scored less than 20 (40%) in the Tamil Eligibility Test held on 05.01.2025
she is ineligible for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General) and quash the
same and consequently, direct the second respondent to award additional 3
marks for the question Nos. 10 ID No.(7131342119) 25 ID No.
(7131342120) and 35 ID No. (7131342130) taking the total of the marks
scored by the petitioner to 21 in the Tamil Eligibility Test held on
05.01.2025 pursuant to Notification No.01/MRB/2024 dated 15.03.2024
issued by the second respondent inviting applications for direct recruitment
for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General) coming under the Tamil Nadu
Medical service and call the petitioner for certificate verification and
counselling for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General) pursuant to
Notification No.01/MRB/2024 dated 15.03.2024 issued by the second
respondent.
***
For Petitioner :: Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram
Senior Counsel
For 1st Respondent :: Mr. E.Sundaram
Government Advocate
For 2nd Respondent :: Mr.J.Ravindran
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by L.Murugavel
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:46 pm )
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent dated
02.02.2025 by which it had been stated that the petitioner had obtained less
than 20 marks in the Tamil Eligibility Test held on 05.1.2025 and therefore
she was ineligible for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General) and to quash
the same and direct the second respondent to grant three additional marks
for question Nos. 10, 25 and 35 to the petitioner which would take the mark
of the petitioner to 21 in the Tamil Eligibility Test and therefore make her
eligible to be called for verification of certificates and counselling for the
post of Assistant Surgeon (General) pursuant to the notification
No.1/MRB/2024 dated 15.03.2024 issued by the second respondent.
2. The petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Surgeon
(General) consequent to the notification of the second respondent bearing
No.1/MRB/2024 dated 15.03.2024. The scheme of the examination was
Tamil Eligibility Test on 10th standard level for maximum of 50 marks in
which the minimum qualification was 20 (40%) would be first held and the
paper evaluated. Thereafter, the computer based test, objective type
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:46 pm )
examination for Assistant Surgeon (General) with a maximum of 100 marks
with qualifying marks of 30 for SC, SC Arunthathiyar and ST and 35 for
others would be held. This would be evaluated only if the candidate obtains
the qualifying mark in the Tamil Eligibility Test..
3. The petitioner had written her Tamil Eligibility Test and had
obtained 18 marks. She claimed that the key answers for question Nos. 10,
25 and 35 were wrong and that the answers as given by her were correct.
She therefore stated that if she had been given those three marks, her answer
sheet for the main examination would have been evaluated.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General had produced the key
answers for question Nos. 10, 25 and 35 as given by the Expert Committee
and also the reference materials based on which those key answers had been
determined.
5. The reference materials and the reasons for the key answers had
also been disclosed to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
6. Thereafter, during arguments, the learned Senior Counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:46 pm )
petitioner conceded that the answer given by the petitioner for question
No.10 was wrong but stated that the petitioner had correctly given the
answer for question No.35 and further contended that there was an error in
the question No.25. The learned Senior Counsel therefore contended that
the petitioner must be granted two additional marks in the Tamil Eligibility
Test.
7. Question No.25 is as follows:-
Q: 25. Mrphpag;ghthy; ,aw;wg;gl;l ghly;fis bgUk;ghi;ikahf
bfhz;l ,yf;fpa';fs;>
Options:
1. (A) Ik;bgU';fhg;gpa';fs;
1. (B)r';f ,yf;fpa';fs;
1. (C) rpw;wpy;f;fpa';fs;
1. (D) I";rpW';fhg;gpa';fs;
8. Both the petitioner and the respondents placed reliance on
page No. 195 of the 10th standard text book prescribed by the Tamil
Nadu Government School Education Department as the answer to the
above question. In Page No.195, it had been given as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:46 pm )
mfty; Xir
mfty; Xir Mrphpag;ghtpw;F chpaJ/ ,yf;fz fl;Lf;nfhg;g[f;
Fiwthft[k; ftpij btspaPl;ow;F vspjhtf[k; ,Ug;gJ mftw;gh
vd;Dk; Mrphpag;gh/ r';f ,yf;fpa';fSk; rpyg;gjpfhuk; kzpnkfiy
bgU';fij Mfpa fhg;gpa';fSk; mftw;gh tpy; mike;jit.
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner stated that the
petitioner had chosen option (A) while according to the respondents the
correct answer is option (B). The learned Senior Counsel stated that both (A)
and (B) are correct answers. It is thus contended that the petitioner should
be granted one additional mark.
Question No.35 is as follows:-
brhy;yj;jf;fr; bra;jp vDk; bjhlh; czh;j;Jk; vr;rk;
1. (A) bgaur;rk;
2. (B) Tl;L epiy bgaur;rk;
3. (C) tpidbar;rk;
4. (D) Tl;L epiy tpidbar;rk;
10. The petitioner had chosen an option (C). The respondents have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:46 pm )
stated that the correct answer option (B). The learned Senior Counsel stated
that in the question in the word brhy;yj;jf;fr; bra;jp, the letter r; had been
wrongly given and therefore, claimed that the entire question is wrong and
that therefore, one mark must be given.
11. The learned Additional Advocate General very fairly stated that he
would not enter into a discussion on the correctness of the answers given by
the experts and had placed a caution on the Court to venture into this
exercise as the Court cannot consider itself as an Expert over and above, the
Expert Committee which had examined the correctness of the question and
the correctness of the key answer.
12. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in situations like this had placed a
word of caution on Courts in assuming the role of an expert in a field in
which the Court is evidently and admittedly not an expert.
14. The learned Additional Advocate General reported in (2010) 8
SCC 372, Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr.H.L.Ramesh and others. The Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:46 pm )
Supreme Court examined the re-visitation of an exercise of an Expert
Committee in the matter of appointment for the post of Reader in
Sericulture. It is also to be noted that the contesting parties were holding
Doctorate Degrees in the said subject. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held
as follows:
“37. In All India Council for Technical
Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [(2009) 11 SCC 726]
again the legal position has been reiterated that it is a rule of
prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of
academic bodies.
38. 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 fides have 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 realise and appreciate
its constraints and limitations in academic matters.
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:46 pm )
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.”
15. In the extract referred supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also
frowned upon the practice of the High Courts to ignore consistent legal
position. The consistent legal position was that, in academic matters, the
Courts have a very limited role particularly when no malafide had been
alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It had also
been held that it would only be prudent and safe for the Courts to leave the
decision to the academicians. A word of caution had been held out that the
Courts should not endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the
experts. As a matter of fact, it had been stated that the Court should
appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.
16. The learned Additional Advocate General placed further reliance
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 2 SCC
357, Ran Vijay Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others,
wherein against the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the challenge to a
recruitment process in an examination conducted by the U.P Secondary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:46 pm )
Education Services Selection Board. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was also
concerned with revaluation by the court of the key answers. It had been held
as follows:
“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and
we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They
are:
30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or
scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the
authority conducting the examination may permit it;
30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an
answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may
permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very
clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a
process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases
that a material error has been committed;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise
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.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:46 pm )
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 the
suspect or offending question.
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
examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in
by the candidates who have successfully participated in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:46 pm )
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.”
17. It had thus seen that it had been again held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that the Courts should be extremely cautious in assuming the
role of an expert in re-evaluating and scrutinizing the answer sheets of the
candidates particularly when the Court has no expertise in the matter and
when academic matters are left best to academicians.
18. The position of law is clear. The role of the Court to re-evaluate
and re-examine and re-scrutinize the correctness of the answers as projected
by the respondents is extremely narrow.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:46 pm )
19. However, this Court had entered upon an exercise to call upon the
respondents to produce the expert opinion given with respect to the
correctness of the answers of the questions relating to which disputes have
been raised. The respondents were able to produce the said details with
respect to each one of the questions which had been raised by the petitioner
herein. The details were with respect to the decision of the expert. The name
of the expert who actually set the question paper had been disclosed.
Thereafter, the question had been reduced in writing. Thereafter, the answer
as per the key had been given. The name of the expert who was deputed to
take a decision for the objective tracker was also given. This expert was
different from the expert who actually set the question paper.
20. It is thus seen that not only were the questions examined but also
the answers were examined to determine the correct choice out of the four
possible choices for that particular question. The key answer was given and
then in a brief paragraph, the justification was given as to why that particular
key answer is correct. It was not just a personal opinion of the expert to that
particular key answer, but the reference material or material from which the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:46 pm )
expert was able to get the correct key answer was also given.
21. These are all part of records. Unless the Court were to impute
malafide on the part of the expert who set the question paper, that a
particular question was set to favour a particular candidate and the Court
were to further impute malafide on the part of the expert who evaluated the
question and also identified the correct answer, the Court should not embark
on a journey to question the correctness of the opinion of the expert and the
correctness of the fact stated in the reference book and the correctness of the
question viz-a-viz the correctness / choice.
22. The learned Additional Advocate General had produced all the
relevant details with respect to each one of the question put forth during the
course of arguments and I must respect the expert's opinion with respect to
question Nos.25 and 35, the key answers as given by them are correct. That
justification is further reinforced by the source material on the basis of
which such justification had been given.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:46 pm )
23. The learned Senior Counsel had stated that with respect to
Question No.25, both the answer given by the petitioner and the answer
given as the key answer are correct.
24. As stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Court will have to
presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption.
25. With respect to the challenge laid to question No.35, particularly
to the word brhy;yj;jf;fr; bra;jp wherein the letter r; had been included
erroneously according to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner it has
to be held hat this is an issue on which the Court cannot embark into deep
examination. Again, as seen from the records, the questions had been set by
a different individual and the key answers had been prepared by a different
individual.
26. I hold that the challenge to these questions should necessarily fail
as it is beyond the scope of judicial review to examine the correctness or
otherwise of the key answers, even if it is to be taken that the answers as
projected by the petitioners are also be probably correct. As stated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Courts should lean in favour of the opinion
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:46 pm )
given by the expert who had considerable time, and had access to various
reference books before the correct answer was chosen. Further, in case of
doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the
candidate. The Court has also satisfied itself that for each one of the
questions necessary expert opinion had been obtained and necessary
reference books had also been examined.
27. In view of the above reasonings, this Writ Petition stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition
is closed.
10.03.2025
vsg
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking / Non Speaking Order
Issue Order Copy today 10/03/2025
To
1. Principal Secretary to Government
The State of Tamil Nadu
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. Member Secretary
Medical Services Recruitment Board (MRB)
7th Floor, DMS Buildings
No.359, Anna Salai, Teynampet
Chennai – 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:46 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
vsg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:46 pm )
Pre-Delivery Order made in
And
10.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 05:45:46 pm )
