IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
Prayer:- Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith add 4 weightage marks to the petitioner and 2 marks for the Question No.80 & 116 in the D Serial of the Written Test and consequently direct the respondents to fill up the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Chemistry) only on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination and the weightage marks following the Communal Reservation.
Petitioners : Mr.K.Selvaraj
For Respondent : Mr.D.Krishnakumar
Special Government Pleader
- - - - -
O R D E R
This writ petition has been listed before me as a specially ordered case on the orders of the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice dated 25.06.2014.
2. The petitioner participated in the written examination for direct recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Assistants / Physical Education Director Gr.-I-2013. His Roll Number is 13PG13050259. The question papers were in four series. The questions were of objective type. The petitioner was supplied with 'D' series question paper. He had secured 94 marks. According to the petitioner, for question Nos.80 and 116 though he had answered rightly, he was not awarded each one mark to the said questions.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents as well as perused the records carefully.
4. Question No.80 in 'D' series reads as follows:
Q.No.80. Which one is Hamiltonian operator for a helium atom by perturbation method ?
(A) -h2/8?2m d2/dn2
(B) -h2/8?2m ?21 -e2/r1
(C) -h2/8?2m [?^21 + ?^22] -e2/r1 -e2/r2 +e2/r12
(D) -h2/8?2m ?22 -e2/r2
5. According to the petitioner, none of the answer is correct answer and the question should be deleted from valuation. But according to TRB option 'C' is the correct answer.
6. Today, an expert in the Chemistry subject is present before this Court viz., Dr.G.Sukanyaa, Assistant Professor, Department of Chemistry, Queen Mary's College, Chennai. This Court had the benefit of hearing the expert also.
7. The expert would rely on a standard text book known as "Quantum Chemistry" authored by R.K.Prasad and in page 120, the exact answer as found in option 'C' is found. But the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the equation before e2 at three places 'z' should have been mentioned in option 'C'. Since 'z' has not been mentioned, option 'C' is not the right answer. But the expert would state that 'z' denotes atomic number. Since the question pertains to helium, the atomic number is known and therefore 'z' need not be mentioned and that is what is stated in the text books also. I agree with the expert's opinion and hold that the key set by TRB is correct.
8. Now, question No.116 reads as follows:
Q.No.116. The MB spectra of Na2[fe(CN)6NO] complex is doublet, because of the presence of :
(A) Weak ?-bond (B) Extensive ?-bond
(C) Weak ?- bond (D) Extensive ?-bond
9. According to the key answer Option 'D' (Extensive ?-bond) is the right answer and thus TRB has decided to give marks to those candidates who have chosen option 'D' as the right answer. But, the contention of the petitioner is that framing of the question itself is wrong. According to him, in the question it is mentioned Na2[fe(CN)6NO]. He would submit that this should have been Na2[fe(CN)5NO]. Thus, according to the petitioner, the question is wrong.
10. The expert would submit that in a compound the 'CN' may be 4, 5 or 6 and so on. If the compound is CN4 or CN5, it will be called in a different name. But it cannot be said that there can be no 'fe'. The expert would further state that the question relates not to the number of cyano ligand group, but the question relates to nitro ligand group. The expert would refer to a standard book titled Physical Methods in Chemistry authored by Drago and at page No.542, it is stated as follows:
The MB spectrum of sodium nitroprusside, Na2fe(CN)5NO, has been investigated. This material has been formulated earlier as iron(II) and NO+ because the complex is diamagnetic. The MB spectrum consists of a doublet with a ?EQ value of 1.76 mm sec-1 and a ? value of -0.165 mm sec-1. Comparison of this value with reported results on a series of iron complexes led the authors to conclude that the iron ??value is close to that of iron (IV). The magnetism and MB spectrum are consistent with a structure in which there is extensive ? bonding between the odd electron in the t2g set of the orbitals of iron and the odd electron on nitrogen, as illustrated in Fig.15-8. The filled ??bonding orbital would need a large contribution from the nitrogen atomic orbital, and the empty ? antibonding orbital would have a larger contribution from the iron atomic orbital to produce iron (IV). More of the ??electron density would be localized on nitrogen and the ??value for iron would approach that of iron (IV) because of decreased shielding of the s electrons by the d electrons. Since electron density is being placed in what was previously a ??antibonding orbital of nitric oxide, a decrease in the N-O infrared stretching frequency is observed. The very large quadrupole splitting is consistent with very extensive ??bonding in the Fe-N-O link.
11. Referring to the same, the expert would submit that the question as framed is right. I have gone through the text book, being a graduate in Chemistry, I am able to understand the statement made by the expert before me. I am fully convinced that the expert is right and therefore the challenge to this question is rejected.
12. At this juncture, I have to say that the power of this Court to interfere with the decision of experts in respect of key answers has been elaborately dealt with in a number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, about which, I need not elaborate. I deem it suffice to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta, reported in 1983 (4) SCC 309, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the key answer is demonstrably wrong, then only this Court has got power to interfere with the same. Applying the said decision, we have to examine this case as to whether the key answer set by the respondents is demonstrably wrong. Here, in this case, the petitioner is not able to demonstrate that the key answer pertaining to question No.80 and 116 is wrong.
13. So far as the next prayer that the petitioner should be awarded marks even before he is called for certificate verification is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that already there is a common order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.25227 of 2006 dated 14.09.2006.
14. But the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that in the said case, the notification dated 26.07.2006 was challenged and therefore, in that case, the learned Judge took such a view. In the present case, the petitioner has not challenged the notification at all.
15. In view of the same, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The interim order already granted is hereby vacated. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
Sent from my iPad
கருத்துகள் இல்லை:
கருத்துரையிடுக