High Court · 2025

WP No. 5113 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11-12-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANIWP No. 5113 of 2024and WMP No. 5629 OF 2024P.RamachandranPetitioner(s)Vs1. The State of Tamil NaduRep. By Its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 92.The CommissionerDirectorate Of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 063.The Chairman,Teacher Recruitment Board, 4th Floor EVK Sampath Maligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 06Respondent(s)PRAYER; This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records relating to the order of the 3rd respondent Na.Ka.No. 6788/ E2-S1/ 2022 dated 2.02.2024 and further to quash the said order dated 2.02.2024 of the 3rd respondent rejecting the petitioner for the post of Post Graduate Assistants/ English in School Education by awarding 98.17181 marks and consequently select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Post Graduate Assistant under BC Category by revising the mark of the petitioner to 98.799925 within a time frame to be fixed by this Honble court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 5113 of 2024For Petitioner(s):Mr.Roshan Atiq MFor Respondent(s):Mrs.Mythreye Chandru, SGP For R1 And R2Mr.R.Neelakandan,Assisted by Mr.C.Kathiravan, SC for R3ORDERThe writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order of the 3rd respondent Na.Ka.No. 6788/ E2-S1/ 2022 dated 2.02.2024 and further to quash the said order dated 02.02.2024 of the 3rd respondent rejecting the petitioner for the post of Post Graduate Assistants/ English in School Education by awarding 98.17181 marks and consequently select and appoint the petitioner to the post of Post Graduate Assistant under BC Category by revising the mark of the petitioner to 98.799925 within a time frame to be fixed by this Honble court.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Post- Graduate in English Literature and also holds B.Ed. Qualification. He applied for direct recruitment to the post of P.G. Assistant (English) and he took up the examination conducted on 18.02.2023. On 09.04.2022, the respondents published tentative answer keys. On verification, the petitioner found that answers in respect of question Nos.71 and 108 in English Paper-II were not correct. Though the petitioner raised an objection and the same was not considered by the respondent. The selection list was published on 16.09.2022 and cut off marks for candidates belonging to Backward community was fixed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 5113 of 2024at 98.19 marks. According to the petitioner, he secured 97.77 marks. Because of the wrong answers given to the above mentioned questions, it is the case of the petitioner, that he could not cross the cut off marks. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the answer key provided by the third respondents with respective question numbers 71 and 108. This court on an analysis of the entire facts, held that question number 108 was given a wrong answer and directed the respondents to award the marks to the petitioner in respect of the said question. It is the grievance of the petitioner that instead of awarding one mark for the said question, the third respondent has awarded only 0.40 marks and therefore, his result has increased very marginally to 98.17 which is little short of the cut off marks of 98.19.3. Aggrieved by the action of the third respondent in not awarding full marks, the present writ petition has been filed.4. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit on 22.04.2024 followed by an additional counter affidavit dated 24.03.2025. Both in the counter affidavit and in additional counter affidavit, the third respondent has narrated the methodology followed by the respondents for awarding marks. The third respondent has also extracted the calculation method adopted by the National Stock Exchange Information Technology in respect of calculation of normalised marks for multi-session papers. The counter affidavit is followed by an additional counter affidavit, wherein also the respondent has demonstrated at https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 5113 of 2024paragraph No. 9 as to how the petitioner has faired in the examination and the break up of the questions attempted by him and the correct and wrong answers given by him. The third respondent has categorically demonstrated as to how it had arrived at the total marks secured by the petitioner and as to how the marks was arrived at 98.17 marks. 5. Though the petitioner had an ample time, the petitioner has not chosen to file any re-joinder in response to the affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed by the third respondent disputing the methodology adopted by the respondents while awarding marks. 6. This Court had heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.7. Awarding of marks for multi-session papers and calculation of normalised marks for such papers is not within the domain of this Court. This Court normally would not venture into areas which require expertise and this Court would accept the opinion of the experts in the field. The third respondent has given at paragraph No.4 as to how calculation of normalised marks for multi-session papers is done. This Court is not inclined to doubt the method adopted by the experts in the field. Though the counter affidavit was filed now, but the petitioner has not chosen to file any re-joinder disputing the method adopted by the respondents in the case of awarding marks. Therefore, this Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 5113 of 2024is not inclined to doubt the statement made by the third respondent in the case of awarding marks to the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has not imputed any motives against the respondents for awarding him less marks. The respondents have purely played the rule book and they awarded marks to the petitioner that he is entitled to. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 11-12-2025rliIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NoTo1. The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 92.The CommissionerDirectorate Of School Education, Dpi Campus, College Road, Chennai 063.The ChairmanTeacher Recruitment Board, 4th Floor Evk Sampath Maligai, Dpi Campus, College Road, Chennai 06 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 5113 of 2024M.DHANDAPANI J.rliWP No. 5113 of 202411-12-2025