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
W.P.No.16291 of 2014
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
S.NAGAMUTHU,J.
msk
W.P.No.16291 of 2014
25.06.2014
Sent from my iPad
கருத்துகள் இல்லை:
கருத்துரையிடுக