KEY ANSWER
question No.33 in 'D' SERIES
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :
25.06.2014
CORAM
THE
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
and
M.P.No.1 of
2014
P.Eswari ...
Petitioner
vs.
1.The
Secretary to Government,
School
Education Department,
Secretariat,
Fort
St.George,
Chennai-600
009
2.The
Chairman,
Teachers
Recruitment Board,
Chennai-600
008
3.The Member
Secretary,
Teacher
Recruitment Board,
Chennai-600
008 ... Respondents
Writ Petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance
of a writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondent to provide 1 mark
for question No.33 in 'D' series in Paper-II, which was wrongly given the key
answer in Special Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test-2014 conducted by the
Teachers Recruitment Board and consequently appoint the petitioner for the post
of Post Graduate Assistant in Tamil.
For
Petitioner : Mr.M.Rajendiran
For
Respondents : Mr.R.Rajeswaran,Spl.G.P.
O R D E R
The Teachers
Recruitment Board, Government of Tamil Nadu, conducted Special Tamil Nadu
Teachers Eligibility Test'-2014 for persons with disability (PWD) candidates,
as per the Notification No.1 of 2014, on 21.5.2014. The petitioner participated
in the said examination. Her Roll Number is 13TE00264811. The question papers
were in four series. The questions were of objective type. The petitioner was
supplied with 'D' series question paper. She has secured 81 marks. According to
the petitioner, for question No.33, though she had answered rightly, she has
not been awarded 1 mark.
2. It needs
to be mentioned that tentative key answers were published by the Teachers'
Recruitment Board calling for objections. So far as question No.33 in 'D'
series in Paper-II, is concerned, the petitioner had submitted her objection.
After that, now the respondents have published the final key answers, in which,
they have stated that option (B) is the right answer and not option (D), as has
been claimed by the petitioner. The results have already been published, based
on the said final key answers. The petitioner challenges the non-awarding of
one mark for question No.33 in 'D' series. Therefore, the petitioner is before
this Court with this writ petition.
3. I have
heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Rajeswaran, the learned
Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and I have also
perused the records carefully.
4. As per the
undertaking given before this Court, today, the respondents have ensured the
presence of three experts, who are Post Graduate Tamil Teachers, working in
various schools, by names, 1.K.Chinnadurai, 2.R.Dayanidhi and 3.N.Gopi. I have
heard their opinion also.
11. Though
the petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking a direction for
awarding of one mark for question No.33 to her alone, since the key answer is
not fully correct, any benefit given to the petitioner should be extended to
the similarly placed persons. Therefore, it would be appropriate for this Court
to do justice to all the candidates, who have answered option (D) as the right
answer, by awarding one mark. Thus, this judgment is in rem and not in
personam.
12. In the
result, the writ petition is allowed in the following terms:
(i) The
respondents are directed to award one mark for those candidates, who have
answered either option (B) or option (D) as answer to question No.33 in 'D'
series and in the other series for the said question.
(ii) The
respondents shall revalue all the answer papers by making the above
modification in the key answers and then publish the revised result.
(iii) The
learned Special Government Pleader would state that the said exercise will be
completed within one week. Accordingly it is directed that the said exercise
shall be completed within one week from today.
No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed
25.06.2014
