K.Perumal v. Joint Director (Valuation) Directorate of Government Examinations

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 10-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.12570 of 2009 andM.P.No.1 of 2009K.Perumal.. Petitioner.Versus1.Joint Director (Valuation)Directorate of Government ExaminationsChennai-6.2.SecretaryTamil Nadu Engineering Admissions 2009,Anna University, Chennai-25.3.Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary,Education Department, Chennai... Respondents.Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamusto call for the records of the first respondent in RCNo.023997/RV/09, dated 1.7.2009 and quash the same and further directthe first respondent to award 3 marks to answer No.38, as againstzero and 10 marks to Answer No.69 as against 8, totalling 194 marksas against 189 in the Physics paper for the petitioners daughterP.Vinotha, Register No.651149 appeared in Higher SecondaryExamination, conducted in March, 2009. For Petitioner : Mr.R.ArumugamFor Respondents : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy (R1 & R3) Government Advocate Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal (R2)O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned counsels appearing for the respondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The petitioner has stated that his daughter, P.Vinotha, hadappeared for the Higher Secondary examinations conducted by the firstrespondent in the month of March, 2009, with Register No.651149.After valuation of the answer books the results had been declared andthe petitioner's daughter had scored 1150 out of 1200. In the marksheet issued by the first respondent, the particulars of the marksobtained by P.Vinotha had been shown as followsTheoryPracSanskrit198English175Physics139050189Chemistry144050194Comp.Science144050194Maths200Total11503. It has been further stated that even though the petitioner'sdaughter, P.Vinotha, was expecting 194 marks in the physics paper,she was awarded only 189 marks. Therefore, the petitioner had appliedfor a copy of the answer book of the physics examination. A xeroxcopy of the answer book had been given to the petitioner. Onconsultation with some of the experienced teachers in the subject thepetitioner had come to know that his daughter should have got 3 marksfor the answer to Question No.38, instead of the zero marks awardedto her. Further, he had been informed that his daughter should havegot 10 marks for the answer for Question No.69, instead of the 8marks which had been awarded to her. In such circumstances, thepetitioner had applied for the revaluation of the answer book of hisdaughter, after payment of the requisite fee. By a memorandum inRc.No.023997/RV/09, dated 1.7.2009, received by the petitioner, on6.7.2009, the first respondent had intimated that there was no changein the marks already awarded in the physics paper. 4. It has been further stated that P.Vinotha had given thecorrect answer for the Question No.38, in which she had statedFlemings Right Hand Rule, as per the text book. Even if there wassome difference in the answer she should have been given full marksfor it, as it had been stated, in the instructions issued by theDirectorate of Government examinations, Chennai, along with the keyanswers for the physics paper, that for the answers in Part-II, IIIand IV, like reasoning, explaining, narrating, describing and listingthe points, students may right in their own words without changingthe concepts and without skipping any points. Since Question No.38 is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ found in Part -II of the question paper in the physics paper it wouldhave been sufficient for the candidate to use her own words incertain places, while answering the said question. However, no markshad been awarded to the candidate for her answer to the saidquestion, even though she had given the correct answer. With regardto the Question No.69, it has been stated that though the candidatehad written the concept correctly without changing the meaning,instead of awarding full marks, two marks had been reduced for thesaid answer. It had also been submitted that the candidate had notbeen awarded the correct marks for the answer to Question No.51, eventhough she had written the answer correctly. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentshad submitted, based on the instructions received by her from therespondents, that the candidate had not written the correct answerfor Question No.38. It has been stated that instead of statingFlemings Right Hand Rule, the candidate had stated Flemmings LeftHand rule. 6. The learned counsel had pointed out the difference by placingbefore this Court the following tabulation:STATEMENT AS PER TEXTBOOKWRITTEN BY THE STUDENTOMISSION IN THESTATEMENTThe forefinger, themiddle finger and thethumb of the righthand are held in thethree mutuallyperpendiculardirections. If theforefinger pointsalong the direction ofthe magnetic field andthe thumb is along thedirection of motion ofconductor, then themiddle finger pointsin the direction ofinducted current. Thisrule is also calledGenerator rule. The fore finger,middle finger andthumb finger of theright hand isstretchedperpendicular to eachother, if the forefinger shows thedirection of magneticfield and thumb fingershows the direction offorce on theconductor, the middlefinger will show thedirection of inducedcurrent in it. ThisRule is also called asGenerator rule.Mutually is notwrittenthe thumb finger showsdirection of motionThe statement of therule was not writtenas in the text bookIt was further explained stating that as per Flemming's Right handrule, the thumb is along the direction of motion of the conductor, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ but it should not be force on the conductor. In Flemming's Left handrule only the thumb points in the direction of the force on theconductor. 7. With regard to Question No.51, the learned counsel, whileexplaining the reason for the rejection of the marks for the saidanswer, had placed before this Court the following tabulation:Sl.NoKey Answer MarksAllotted Marks Awarded1.Electric Potential-Definition112.Diagram & Explanation113. Dv= -Edx114. E= q 1-----5.V = - q . dx = 118. With regard to Question No.69, the learned counsel for thepetitioner had submitted the following tabulation:Sl.NoKey Answer MarksAllotted Marks Awarded1.Definition222.Diagram223. Explanation1----4. A- V / V115.V = V = 116. A = V / V =117. For negative feedback thefeedback fraction is -11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.NoKey Answer MarksAllotted Marks Awarded8. A = 119. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel forthe petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court isconstrained to hold that the petitioner has not shown sufficientcause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for in the writpetition. It is clearly demonstrated that the candidate had beenawarded the correct marks for the answers she had given for theQuestion Nos.38, 69 and 51, in the Physics paper of the HigherSecondary school examinations, held in the month of March, 2009. Onverification it had been found that no serious discrepancies arefound warranting re-valuation of the answers written by the candidatefor the said questions. In such circumstances, no directions can beissued to the respondents, as prayed for by the petitioner, to awardhigher marks for the answers given by the petitioner for the QuestionNos.38, 69 and 51. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of thepetitioner cannot be countenanced. As the writ petition is devoid ofmerits, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petitionis dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarcshTo1.The Joint Director (Valuation) Directorate of Government Examinations Chennai-6.2.The Secretary Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions 2009, Anna University, Chennai-25. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.+1 cc to Mr.R.Arumugam, Advocate, SR.No.30825Writ Petition No.12570 of 2009GR {CO}TP/14.7.2009.