THE HONOURABLE MR v. The Secretary

For Petitioner in W.P.12127/2008: Mr.N.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.K.Rajesh Praveen KumarFor Petitioner in W.P.13762/2008: Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for Mr.C.SivakumarFor Petitioners in W.P.14853to14856,: Mr.K.M.Vijayan,17472 to 17475, 18392/2008 Senior Counsel, for Mr.R.SivakumarFor Petitioner in W.P.17195/2008: Mr.N. UmapathyFor Petitioners in WP.17247&17248/2008: Mr.S.SubbiahFor Petitioner in W.P.17252/2008: Mr.P.V.RangarajanFor Petitioner in W.P.17452/2008: Mr.V.BhimanFor Petitioners in WP.17695,17696 &: Mr.M.Vijay Anand18296/2008For Petitioners in WP.17912to17914/2008: Mr.N.VelmuruganFor Petitioners in WP.18104 to 18110 &: Mr.G.Rajan18140/2008For Petitioners in WP.18416,18417/2008: Mr.S.SaravanakumarFor Respondent/TNPSC in all: Mr.A.Arul Government Advocatewrit petitionsCOMMON ORDERBy consent of both sides, all the writ petitions are taken up forfinal disposal.2.Since the issue involved in all these cases are one and thesame, all the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.3.The common prayer in all these writ petitions are forissuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to treat thepetitioners as 'passed' in the Group-I Services PreliminaryExaminations 2006-2007 conducted by the respondent on 23.12.2007 byrectifying the wrong key answers assigned to question Nos.118, 133,140, 143, 152, 167 & some other questions and permit them to write theGroup-I main written examinations scheduled to be held on 16.8.2008and 17.8.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The facts in nutshell that are necessary for disposal of allthese writ petitions are as follows:(a)The case of the petitioners in all the writ petitions isthat the respondent TNPSC issued a notification on 1.8.2007 andinvited applications for direct recruitment to the vacancies for theposts included in Group-I Services 2006-2007. The said notificationwas issued after a gap of seven years. Total number of vacanciesnotified are 178, distributed among posts in various categories.Petitioners applied for the said posts and also appeared in thepreliminary examination (screening test) conducted from 16.12.2007 to26.12.2007, according to their optional subjects.(b)For Group-I Services, selection procedure consists of threestages viz., Preliminary Examination (Short listing), Main WrittenExamination and Oral Test. The preliminary examination is a screeningtest based on objective type questions i.e., to choose the bestanswers out of the given four options. The respondent has to call forcandidates at 1:10 ratio for appearance in the main writtenexamination from various categories. The main written examination isa written test containing General Studies Paper-I and Paper-II. Thesuccessful candidates in the main written examination are called forthe oral interview for final selection. The selection list will beannounced based on the combined marks secured in the main writtenexamination and oral test. Posts are allotted according to thedescending order of merit in accordance with the preference given bythe candidates in their application.(c)The preliminary examination results were declared on25.4.2008. In the preliminary examination 200 objective type questionswere asked. Each question carries 1.50 marks and the total marks are300. The cut-off marks fixed for each category and the actual marksobtained by the petitioners in all these writ petitions are asfollows:----------------------------------------------------------------------Sl.W.P.No.Name of theCommunityCut-OffMarksNo.Candidate/MarksObtainedPetitioner----------------------------------------------------------------------1.12127S.Senthil KumarSC1951922.13762R.GovindasamyST156151.53.14853S.Anantha KumaarSC195193.54.14854M.A.Ravi VarmaSC1951925.14855P.V.Vijaya Karthik RajSC195193.56.14856G. RavichandranSC195177 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.17195S.VelmuruganBC2011988.17247|T. GeethaBC187.518617248|(Women)9.17252V.PrasadBC201199.510.17452K. RamyaMBC180178.5(Women)11.17472R. ArvindhBC201199.512.17473D. Ashok KumarBC201193.513.17474S. Senthil NathanBC201199.514.17475S. MugeshSC19519215.17695P. RadhakrishnanBC201190.516.17696M. HarikaranMBC196.5190.517.17912C. SivakumarBC20119218.17913D. David RajkumarBC201193.519.17914M.Deepak PiousBC201199.5Bakkiaraj20.18104J.Mullai ArasuBC20119221.18105G. RadhakrishnanBC20119522.18106S. SanthakumarST156154.523.18107RamakrishnanSC19519224.18108A. Felix RajaBC201196.525.18109V. JayendranMBC196.519226.18110S. EthirajSC195190.527.18140Dr.S.PeriannanBC201193.528.18296L.Infant Maria Roger-BC201193.529.18392C. SanguMBC196.5175.530.18416K. AnbuvijayanMBC196.519531.18417S. PandiarajanSC195189----------------------------------------------------------------------(d)It is the specific case of the petitioners that the marksawarded to them are lesser than the expected marks, which according tothe petitioners is due to the wrong key answers given for somequestions as well as wrong questions asked and more than one answer iscorrect in certain questions. According to the petitioner in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.12127 of 2008, he submitted a representation on 28.4.2006 andpointed out some controversial questions, where the Commission wouldhave given wrong key answers, supported with evidence and evensubmitted the relevant text books. Immediately after the examinationis over, several candidates made representations to the Commissionstating similar allegations and discrepancies in the questions as wellas answers. However, the Commission failed to rectify the mistakes.According to the petitioners, the Commission should have rectified thediscrepancies in the questions/answers by referring the same to theexperts in the field/subject or area concerned and proceeded with thevaluation and awarded marks as per the correct key answers and awardmarks to the petitioners, who attended the questions, which arewrongly asked or more than one answer is correct. Following are thesample questions in which there were discrepancies pointed out by thepetitioner in W.P.No.12127 of 2008:"(a)In Question No.118Consider the following statements:Assertion (A): Buddhism does not accept the theory of Karma.Reason (R): It does not accept the existence of permanentself. Now select your answer according to the coding schemegiven below:A)Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanationof (A)B)Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)C)(A) is true, but (R) is falseD)(A) is false, but (R) is ture.For this question option 'D' - "(A) is false, but (R) istrue" is the correct answer. This can be proved from anyhistory text book. However, the Commission has treated 'B'as the correct answer.(b)In Question No.133Ashrams at four stages of life came to be well establishedduring which period ?A)Pre-Vedic period B)Rig Vedic periodC)Later-Vedic periodD)None of theseFor this question option 'D' - "None of these" is thecorrect answer, since post vedic period is the correctanswer. This can be proved from any history text book.However, the Commission has treated 'C' as the correctanswer.(c)In Question No.140 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Pallava rulers believed inA)JainismB)BuddhismC)HinduismD)ShaivismFor this question, option 'D' - "Shaivism" is the correctanswer, which could be proved beyond doubt from any historytext book. However, the Commission has put 'A' as thecorrect answer.(d)In Question No.143Consider the following statements:Assertion (A):Curzon partioned Bengal in 1905Reason (R):He wanted to destroy nationalistic unity.Now select your answer according to the coding scheme givenbelow:A)Both (A) and (R) are correct and (R) is the correct explanationof (A)B)(A) is correct, but (R) is wrongC)Both (A) and (R) are correct, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)D)Both (A) and (R) are wrong.For this question option 'A' - "Both (A) and (R) are correctand (R) is the correct explanation of (A)" which could beascertained by careful study and also have been mentioned bygreat historians like Grover & Grover. However, theCommission has put 'C' as the correct answer.(e)In Question No.152The important parts during the Sangam Age werei)Kaveripattinamii)Maduraiiii)Arikamediiv)Kapatapuramv)Musiriof these,A)(i), (ii) and (iv)B)(i), (ii) and (iii)C)(i), (iii) and (v)D)(ii) onlyFor this question, option 'C' was the correct answer if itis considered as Ports as per the tamil version of thequestion.(f)In Question No.167 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The length of India's coast line is aboutA)7516.6 kmB)7500.5 kmC)7000 kmD)6100 kmFor this question, option 'A' - India's Coast Line "7516.6km is the correct answer, since it includes Andaman &Nicobar Islands. However, the Commission has put 'D' as thecorrect answer."(e)Similar was the averments made by the other petitioners.Some of the petitioners pointed out ambiguity in more number ofquestions. According to the petitioners, since the selection is beingmade after seven years and the petitioners may not be in a position toapply in the next selection due to over age, they are left with noother remedy except to file these writ petitions for rectifying thewrong key answers and for awarding marks either on the ground that thequestions framed are wrong, or key answers furnished are wrong, or ifmore than one answer is correct, the petitioners who attended thosequestions should be given 1.50 marks each and by awarding marks insuch manner they will get the cut-off marks or more for theirappearance in the main written examination.5.The respondent/TNPSC filed counter affidavit by stating thatthe preliminary examination is meant to serve as a screening testonly. The marks obtained in the preliminary examination by thecandidates, who are declared qualified for admission to the mainwritten examination will not be counted for determining their finalorder of merit. The number of candidates to be admitted to the mainwritten examination will be in the ratio of 1:10 having regard to therule of reservation of appointments. However, if same marks aresecured by more than one candidate within the respective reservationgroup, all of them will be admitted. Final selection will be made onthe basis of the total marks obtained by the candidates in the mainwritten examination and oral test taken together, subject to the ruleof reservation of appointment taking into account the options of postsexercised by the candidates in the order of preference. A candidate,who has not appeared in any one of the papers in main writtenexamination or oral test will not be considered for selection. It isfurther stated in the counter affidavit that since the petitionersherein have not secured the cut-off marks prescribed for eachcategory, they are not entitled to appear in the main writtenexamination. Insofar as settling of discrepancies in the questionsand key answers, the procedure followed by the Commission is asfollows:"6 (i)According to para 42 of the"Instructions etc. to the Candidates" appearingfor the objective type examinations", theinformation received from the candidates orotherwise considering as defective in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ question/answer within 3 days from the date ofexaminations are taken into account and thesame are referred to 2 independent subjectexperts normally. If there is any differenceof opinion between the two examiners, it isreferred to the third examiner.(ii)The said well established procedureis followed for this recruitment also. In thisconnection it is submitted that the Commissionhas received representations pointing outcertain discrepancies on some key answers inthe preliminary examination. The saiddiscrepancies have been referred to threeindividual experts and their opinions have beenobtained individually.(iii)Based on the opinion of thethree experts, the correct key answers havebeen arrived at and accordingly the tabulationof results has been done and the RegisterNumbers of the candidates qualified for MainWritten examination arrived at have alreadybeen published in the newspapers. Thus, allthe discrepancies pointed out by the candidateshad already been settled. ....."It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as per paragraph 42of the instructions, the candidates must submit a representation torectify the discrepancies within three days from the date ofexamination and if no discrepancy is pointed out within three days,the same will not draw the attention of the Commission as per theinstructions. According to the respondent, out of the six questionsreferred by the petitioner in W.P.No.12127 of 2008, five questionsthat is question Nos.118, 133, 140, 152 and 167 have already beensettled based on the opinion of the three individual examiners sincerepresentations were received from candidates within the time asstipulated in paragraph 42 of the instructions. In the remaining onequestion i.e., question No.143, none of the candidate pointed out anydefect. Pointing out these aspects, the respondent prayed fordismissal of the writ petitions.6.The learned Senior Counsels and other counsels appearing forthe petitioners submitted that question Nos.62, 88 and 130 are wrongaccording to the English and Tamil versions. Insofar as questionNos.137, 173 and 174, the key answers are wrong and therefore thepetitioners who have attended the said questions are entitled to get1.50 marks each. The learned Senior Counsels also submitted thatadmittedly some of the candidates appeared for the examinationsubmitted their objections within three days with regard to the wrongquestions and till date it could not be ascertained as to whether thekey answers are right or wrong, in view of the non-disclosure of thekey answers by the respondent. The respective counsels contended thatunless and until the key answers are disclosed, petitioners will not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be in a position to point out the mistake in the key answers andtherefore the submission that within three days no objection wasraised and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to seek theseprayers, is unsustainable. In support of the said submissions thelearned counsels cited certain decisions.7.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the TNPSCpointing out the contentions raised in the counter affidavit contendedthat wherever the candidates submitted objection within three days,the Commission referred the matter to the experts and awarded marksat the time of valuation and after expiry of three days noapplication for review or verification as to whether the question iscorrect or the key answer is correct can be entertained. Petitionershaving not applied in time before the respondent pointing out the factof wrong questions or wrong key answers within three days, they haveno right to file these writ petitions and seek permission to write thefinal written examination for selection. In support of the saidsubmission, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent citedcertain decisions.8.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learnedSenior Counsels and other Counsels appearing for the petitioners aswell as the learned Standing Counsel for the TNPSC, respondent herein.9.The question arises for consideration in all these cases areas to whether the petitioners have got any right to point out anydefect in the questions asked, more than one answer is correct in thechoices given and whether the key answers are wrong, after three daysof their examination.10.Before deciding the said main issue certain factual aspectsare necessarily to be considered for proper appreciation of the issuesinvolved in these cases.11.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/TNPSCproduced the opinion of the three experts with regard to thediscrepancies pointed out by the petitioners regarding questions/keyanswers, which reads as follows:"Opinion of the three Expertswith regard to the discrepancies pointed out by the petitionerregarding Questions/Answer Keys https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Q.No'A'SeriesOpinion of theFirst ExpertOpinion oftheSecond ExpertOpinion oftheThird ExpertRemarks62Correct answeris'C'Correctanswer is'C'Correctanswer is'C'Answer'C'valued88Correct answeris'C'Correctanswer is'C'Correctanswer is'C'Answer'C'valued130Correct answeris'A'Correctanswer is'A'Correctanswer is'A'Answer'A'valuedQ.Nos.137, 173 & 174 (Remarks) - None of the candidates whoappeared for the examination had pointed out as defective.Hence the said questions were not considered to bedefective and therefore the Question of taking into Accountfor settling discrepancies did not arise. The belatedclaim of the candidate could not be entertained at thestage as the results of the Preliminary Examination hadalready been announced."In Question No.167, the expert opinion varies with regard to the textbook viz., Manorama Year Book. Since the correct answer varies fromthe distance stated in the said book even according to the expertsappointed by the respondent, marks are awarded to all the candidates,who have appeared for examination as there are three differentanswers. It is relevant to note that the respondent is not justifiedin awarding 1.50 marks to all the candidates who have appeared for theexamination, but the proper course that should have been adopted is toaward 1.50 marks to those candidates who have attended questionNo.167.12.The contention of the petitioner that English version ofquestion No.62 is wrong is also well founded. The correct questionshould be, "The important ports during Sangam age were .....", but,in the question paper it is wrongly mentioned as "The important partsduring Sangam age were ....". In view of the said discrepancypointed out, the persons who have attended question No.62 should begiven 1.50 marks.13.For question No.130, according to the petitioners, option'D' - Saivism is the correct answer as per the history text book.However, the respondent has chosen option 'A' as the correct answer.Similarly, for question No.137, according to the petitioners, option'A' is the correct answer viz., the final work of UPSC in recruitment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ process is selection and the respondent has assigned wrong key answer.For question No.173, according to the petitioners, option 'A' is thecorrect answer according to the great historians like Grover & Grover,however, the Commission gave 'C' as the correct answer. Similar isthe contentions raised for several other questions.14.In the light of the above assertions, which are based onleading text books/authors, there is justification in the contentionsof the petitioners that the above matters viz., whether the questionsare correct or the key answers are correct in respect of thosequestions and answers is to be ascertained by a Committee of Experts.Merely because the petitioners have not requested to verify the samewithin three days, the action of the respondent which is conductingexaminations for recruitment to Group-I Services cannot be justified.The petitioners are right in contending that the key answers are notpublished till date and therefore they could not know even todaywhether the key answers given for valuation are right or wrong. Insuch circumstances, the only defence of the respondent that thepetitioners have not applied within three days as per the instructionsto candidates and therefore they lost their right to get re-scrutiny,cannot be countenanced.15.The scope of interference, under Article 226 of Constitutionof India, when there is violation of statutory duties and injusticecaused to any person was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court inthe following cases:(a)In Dwarka Nath v. I.T.Officer, AIR 1966 SC 81 = (1965) 3 SCR536 = 57 I.T.R. 349, a three-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court hasheld as follows:"Art.226 is couched in comprehensivephraseology and it ex facie confers a widepower on the High Courts to reach injusticewherever it is found. The Constitutiondesignedly used a wide language in describingthe nature of the power, the purpose for whichand the person or authority against whom it canbe exercised. It can issue writs in the natureof prerogative writs as understood in England;but the scope of those writs also is widened bythe use of the expression “nature”, for thesaid expression does not equate the writs thatcan be issued in India with those in England,but only draws an analogy from them. Thatapart, High Courts can also issue directions,orders or writs other than the prerogativewrits. It enables the High Courts to mould thereliefs to meet the peculiar and complicatedrequirements of this country. Any attempt toequate the scope of the power of the High Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution with that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the English Courts to issue prerogativewrits is to introduce the unnecessaryprocedural restrictions grown over the years ina comparatively small country like England witha unitary form of government to a vast countrylike India functioning under a federalstructure. Such a construction defeats thepurpose of the article itself. To say this isnot to say that the High Courts can functionarbitrarily under this Article. Somelimitations are implicit in the article andothers may be evolved to direct the articlethrough defined channels. ...."(b) In Rohtas Industries v. Its Union, AIR 1976 SC 425 = 1976Labour and Industrial Cases, 303 (3J), the Supreme Court held that theexpansive and extraordinary power of the High Courts under Art.226 isas wide as the amplitude of the language used indicates and so canaffect any person even a private individual - and be available for any(other) purpose - even one for which another may exist.(c)In Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguri S.M.V.S.J.M.S. Trust v.V.R.Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607 = (1989) 2 SCC 691, it has been held asfollows:"17. ............. Under Article 226,writs can be issued to “any person orauthority”. It can be issued “for theenforcement of any of the fundamental rights andfor any other purpose”.18...............19...............20. The term “authority” used in Article 226, inthe context, must receive a liberal meaningunlike the term in Article 12. Article 12 isrelevant only for the purpose of enforcement offundamental rights under Article 32. Article 226confers power on the High Courts to issue writsfor enforcement of the fundamental rights aswell as non-fundamental rights. The words “anyperson or authority” used in Article 226 are,therefore, not to be confined only to statutoryauthorities and instrumentalities of the State.They may cover any other person or bodyperforming public duty. The form of the bodyconcerned is not very much relevant. What isrelevant is the nature of the duty imposed onthe body. The duty must be judged in the lightof positive obligation owed by the person orauthority to the affected party. No matter by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ what means the duty is imposed, if a positiveobligation exists, mandamus cannot be denied."(d)In Union of India and others v. R.Reddappa and another,(1993) 4 SCC 269, the Supreme Court has observed that once the Courtis satisfied of injustice or arbitrariness, then the restriction,self-imposed or statutory, stands removed and no rule or technicalityon exercise of power, can stand in way of rendering justice.(e)In B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, theSupreme Court approving the decision of the Orissa High Court inKrishna Chandra Pallai v. Union of India, (AIR 1992 Orissa 261)(FB)held as follows:"High Court being a Court of plenaryjurisdiction has inherent power to do completejustice between parties similar to SupremeCourt's power under Art.142."(f)In Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union,(1997) 9 SCC 377 = AIR 1997 SC 645 = 1997 Lab.L.C. 365: (1997) 1 LNN75, the Supreme Court has reiterated the Court's power under Art.226as follows:"No limitation except self imposed - the arm ofCourt long enough to reach injustice wherever itis found. The Court as sentinel on the qui viveis to mete out justice in given facts."(g)Following the said decisions, K.Sampath, J. in the decisionreported in (2001) 1 MLJ 180 (Sudarshan Kumar v. University of Madras)ordered re-scrutiny/proper valuation of B.E.degree paper (Electricaland Electronics Engineering) conducted by the Anna University whereinthe candidate was originally given 30% of the marks and after re-assessment one Examiner awarded 78% and another examiner awarded 69%and this Court ordered to take average of the said two i.e., 75% andby virtue of that re-assessment a brilliant candidate who was declaredfail in the B.E.degree was declared pass with distinction. Theexamination regulations of Anna University prohibits re-assessment/re-scrutiny. The learned Judge further observed in paragraph 12 asfollows:"....... The amendment to Art.226 in 1963inserting Art.226 (1-A) reiterate the targets ofthe writ power as inclusive of any person by theexpressive reference to the 'residence of suchperson'. The Supreme Court has spelt out wiseand clear restraints on the use of thisextraordinary remedy and High Courts will not gobeyond those wholesome inhibitions except wherethe monstrosity of the situation or otherexceptional circumstances cry for timelyjudicial interdict or mandate. The mentor oflaw is justice and a potent drug should bejudiciously administered. Speaking in criticalretrospect and portentous prospect, the writpower has, by and large, been the people's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sentinel on the qui vive and to cut back on orliquidate that power may cast a peril to humanrights. ......"(EmphasisSupplied)(h)When allegations of large scale malpractice was made re-valuation was ordered to be done by the Bangalore University,Department of Commerce and Management. Even though it was not foundin the scheme of examination the same was upheld by the Supreme Courtin the decision reported in (2007) 9 SCC 558 (Karnataka PowerCorporation Ltd., v. A.T.Chandrashekar).(i)The question of not submitting objection in time is alsoconsidered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1999SC 199 (C.Tulasi Priya v. A.P.State Council of Higher Education),wherein in the Medical Entrance Examination the candidate wasinitially supplied with wrong paper and only after 20 minutes, ondiscovery of the mistake, Invigilator supplied correct question paper,that is after 30 minutes of commencing of the examination. The non-submitting of protest was not found favour with the Supreme Court ingranting relief to the said candidate and the Supreme Court inparagraph 10 observed as follows:"............ The refusal of the High Court tointerfere on this ground has, regretably,compounded the injustice done to the appellant.............."(j)In the decision reported in AIR 1984 SC 1402 = (1984) 2 SCC319 (Abhijit Sen v. State of U.P.) in paragraph 2, the Supreme Courtconsidered the implications of supplying wrong key answers, whichreads thus,"2. At the outset it may be stated thatCivil Appeal No.4116/83 (filed by appellantAbhijit Sen) and Civil Appeal No. 4118/83 (filedby appellant Satyendra Vikram Singh) were notpressed before us and have to be dismissed.Kumari Shivani Aggarwal and Kumari Sunita Khare(the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.4117 and4119 of 1983) have challenged the University’sdecision (which decision has been upheld by theAllahabad High Court) of refusing them admissionto the MBBS course in any of the seven MedicalColleges. Learned Counsel appearing for themcontended that the “key-answer” supplied by thepaper-setter to Question 31 in Zoology paper(being alternative No.2) was wrong or incorrectand the answer given by both the appellants (byticking alternative No.4) was the correct answeraccording to recognized text-books and thereforeeach one of these appellants was entitled to anaddition of four marks (three marks for givingcorrect answer plus one mark which had been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ wrongly deducted by treating their answers aswrong) and if such addition of four marks wasmade each one was entitled to get admission. Inthe case of Kumari Sunita Khare (appellant inCivil Appeal No.4119/83) her counsel raised afurther similar contention with regard toQuestion 100 in Zoology paper, as according tohim the “key-answer” supplied by the paper-setter (being alternative No.3) was clearlywrong or incorrect while the answer given bythat appellant (by ticking alternative No.4) wasthe correct answer according to recognized text-books and therefore so far as she was concernedeven if her contention with regard to Question31 was not accepted she was entitled to additionof four marks (three for giving correct answerplus one mark which was wrongly deducted bytreating her answer as incorrect) in regard toQuestion 100 and even on this basis she would beentitled to get admission. Counsel for therespondents did not dispute before us that ifthe two appellants or either of them is foundentitled to an addition of four marks assuggested on their behalf they will have to begiven admission to MBBS course but counseldisputed the validity of the contention urged onbehalf of the appellants that “key-answer”supplied by the paper-setter to either Question31 or Question 100 in Zoology paper was wrong orthat the answers furnished by the appellantswere correct. Counsel urged that since the Courtwas embarking upon a course of finding out anddetermining the correct answer having regard tothe recognized text-books or authoritative bookson the subject it would be immaterial whetherthe “key-answer” supplied by the paper-setterwas found to be wrong, not being in conformitywith the correct answer determined by the Courtbut the appellants would not be entitled toaddition of four marks unless their answers werein conformity with the correct answers found bythe Court. In other words according to counselfor the respondents if a situation was reachedwhere both the answers, namely, the one given bythe appellants as well as the “key-answer”supplied by the paper-setter, were found to bewrong with reference to the correct answer asdetermined by the Court the appellants shouldnot succeed. We think there is considerableforce in this last submission made by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ counsel for the respondents."In the said decision the Supreme Court granted relief to onecandidate.(k)Ordering re-valuation of answer books only to the candidatesapproaching the High Court till the date of the decision is alsoupheld by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1996) 7 SCC106 (State of Orissa v. Prajnaparamita Samanta) wherein at para 8 theSupreme Court held thus,"8. Admittedly, the petitioners and theappellants in question had approached eitherthe High Court or this Court after the decisionof the High Court on 27-3-1992. The High Courthas rightly set down the said date as a cut-offlimit and directed consideration of the answerbooks only of those examinees who hadapproached the High Court till that date. It isonly those who are diligent and approach thecourt in time who can be given such relief. Theacademic year cannot be extended for any lengthof time for the benefit of those who choose toapproach the court at their sweet will. Theconsideration on the basis of which relief isgranted in such cases is always circumscribedby the tenure of the academic year(s)concerned. We, therefore, do not see anythingwrong if the High Court has laid down the saiddate as the cut-off date for the purpose. Inthe circumstances, there is no merit in thesewrit petitions and the civil appeals, and theyare dismissed with no order as to costs."(Emphasis Supplied)(l)In the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR2007 SC 3098 = (2007) 8 SCC 242 (Secretary, W.B.Council of HigherSecondary Education v. Ayan Das) the Supreme Court gave a caution toentertain writ petition seeking re-valuation and direction to produceanswer papers. In paragraph 10 (SCC) it is held as follows:"10. The courts normally should not directthe production of answer scripts to beinspected by the writ petitioners unless a caseis made out to show that either some questionhas not been evaluated or that the evaluationhas been done contrary to the norms fixed bythe examining body. For example, in certaincases examining body can provide model answersto the questions. In such cases the examineessatisfy the court that model answer isdifferent from what has been adopted by theBoard. Then only can the court ask for theproduction of answer scripts to allowinspection of the answer scripts by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ examinee. ..........."(m)In (2005) 13 SCC 749 (Guru Nanak Dev University v. SaumilGarg) in paragraph 6 the Supreme Court held that paper setters andthose who finalise the key answers must see that only one correctanswer out of four options given and if none of the answer is correct,it is their duty to say so. Paragraph 6 reads as follows:"6. The University is in appeal on grant ofleave. We have also before us both sets ofstudents — one, students who support theUniversity in their challenge to the directionscontained in the impugned judgment, and two, thestudents who support the impugned directions forre-examination of the key answers in respect ofall 200 questions. The High Court has alsoissued directions for appropriate action to betaken against those who are responsible for theentire confusion and the mess. The High Courthas also issued directions for fixingresponsibility on the paper-setters and thosewho have been vested with the responsibility tofinalise the key answers and consequential stepsto be taken. The said direction of the HighCourt does not call for any interference. Thosewho set the papers and those who finalise thekey answers have to bear in mind that what is atstake is the career of the young students at thevery threshold of their attempt to get entryinto professional courses where there is cut-throat competition. The questions posed musthave only one correct answer out of the fouroptions given. Likewise, there is responsibilityon those who finalise the key answers. If noneof the answers is correct, it becomes their dutyto say that none of the answers is correct, sothat if any remedial action is to be taken, itshould be taken before the answers are valuated.It is evident that on both these aspects, therewas serious lapse which resulted in litigationwhich is otherwise avoidable."(Emphasis Supplied)Again in para 12, if the questions are vague or incapable of having acorrect answer the persons who attended the said questions alone canbe awarded marks. The same is held in paragraph 12 of the saidjudgment thus,"12. There is yet another problem, namely,that of seven questions which are so vague thatthey are incapable of having a correct answer.The appellant University, in respect of those https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ seven questions, has given the credit to allthe students who had participated in theentrance test irrespective of whether someonehad answered the questions or not. We do notthink that that is the proper course to follow.It is wholly unjust to give marks to a studentwho did not even attempt to answer thosequestions. This course would mean that astudent who did not answer say all the sevenquestions would still get 28 marks, eachcorrect answer having four marks. Thereasonable procedure to be followed, in ouropinion, would be to give credit only to thosewho attempted the said questions or some ofthem. Having regard to the circumstances of thecase, we direct that for the students whoattempted those questions or some of thosequestions, insofar as they are concerned, thesaid questions should not be treated to be partof the question paper. To illustrate, if astudent answered all the said seven vaguequestions, insofar as that student isconcerned, total marks would be counted out of772 i.e. 800 less 28 and likewise dependingupon number of such questions, if any, answeredby the student. The seven vague questions areQuestion 4 in Physics, Questions 76 and 89 inChemistry, Questions 147 and 148 in Botany andQuestions 156 and 163 in Zoology of QuestionPaper Code A."(Emphasis Supplied)(n)While preparing the key answers how much care should betaken by the Examiner/person setting the question paper and theconsequences arising out of the said wrong key answers was consideredby the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2005) 13 SCC 744(Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University) (para 10).(o)The same is the view taken by the Supreme Court in thedecision reported in AIR 1983 SC 1230 = (1983) 4 SCC 309 (KanpurUniversity v. Samir Gupta). In paragraphs 16 and 17 the Supreme Courtheld as follows:"16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf ofthe University, contended that no challengeshould be allowed to be made to the correctnessof a key answer unless, on the face of it, it iswrong. We agree that the key answer should beassumed to be correct unless it is proved to bewrong and that it should not be held to be wrongby an inferential process of reasoning or by aprocess of rationalisation. It must be clearly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, itmust be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard ascorrect. The contention of the University isfalsified in this case by a large number ofacknowledged textbooks, which are commonly readby students in U.P. Those textbooks leave noroom for doubt that the answer given by thestudents is correct and the key answer isincorrect.17. Students who have passed theirIntermediate Board Examination are eligible toappear for the entrance Test for admission tothe medical colleges in U.P. Certain books areprescribed for the Intermediate BoardExamination and such knowledge of the subjectsas the students have is derived from what iscontained in those textbooks. Those textbookssupport the case of the students fully. If thiswere a case of doubt, we would haveunquestionably preferred the key answer. But ifthe matter is beyond the realm of doubt, itwould be unfair to penalise the students for notgiving an answer which accords with the keyanswer, that is to say, with an answer which isdemonstrated to be wrong."(p)Similar issue with regard to the wrong questions or wrongkey answers or more than one answer is correct for one question withregard to the entrance examination conducted for MBBS and BDS coursefor the academic year 2004-2005 was considered by this Court in thedecision reported in 2004 WLR 639 (D.Shylaja v. The Secretary toGovernment & Others). In paragraph 52 this Court directed the AnnaUniversity to re-value the answer papers for certain questions, thoughunder the scheme revaluation was not permitted, which reads asfollows:"52.In the result, the writ petitions areallowed in part. The University is directed torevalue all the answer papers. Question Nos.27and 33 in Biology question paper in versioncode MA-7, question Nos.11, 64 and 77 ofversion code BS6 relating to physical scienceshall not be deleted and mark should be awardedto any student who has indicated any of thecorrect choices. It is further directedquestion No.76 in version code BS6 should beevaluated and credit should be given to thestudents who have given the correct option asper the key answer provided by the papersetter. Question No.105 in version code MA-7 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is to be revalued and option No.4 should betaken as the correct answer and not option No.3as indicated by the committee. Question No.117in version code BS6 should be deleted fromconsideration. The necessary revaluation maybe done within a period of three days from thedate of receipt of a copy of this Judgment andrevised marks may be furnished to the selectioncommittee immediately to enable the selectioncommittee to finalise the selection. Theselection committee may fix suitable dates forcounselling. There is no order as to costs.Consequently, the connected miscellaneouspetitions are closed."The said decision was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court inW.A.No.2476 of 2004 etc., batch by Judgment dated 2.8.2004 (G.Nanthiniv. The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai-25) with slightmodification with regard to the number of question. While disposingof the writ appeals, in paragraph 6 the Division Bench held asfollows:"6.Before parting with the case, we wantto address the respondents something in theinterest of students and their parents in thecontext of quality of examination. The veryobject of bypassing the descriptive typeexamination and choosing the objective typemultiple choices examination is to enhance thestandard of education so that the student ismade ready to answer more questions just byticking the correct answer out of fouralternative answers. For that purpose, he ismade to read comprehensively, absorb thecontents and then come to a quick decision.When quick decision with such precision is theobjective, among the alternative answersprovided, one should be the correct answer whilethe remaining three should not be correct. Onlythen the correct answer can be called as the keyanswer. There cannot be a concept of more thanone key answer. Key answer shall be only one.The courts have been doing this exercise andsometimes, in the interest of the career of thestudents, direct the awarding of marks for morethan one question. But that should be only anexception and not the rule. But, unfortunately,the exception has become a rule and the rule anexception because of the falling standards inthe conduct of examinations. We do notunderstand as to why there should be anappellate forum, even at the threshold, by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ setting up an expert committee. The papersetter chooses questions from question bankwhere the key answers are already provided. Bysetting up the expert committee, the papersetter is reduced to just a clerk, as the keyanswer which is indicated has got absolutely noweightage as against the opinion of the expertcommittee as the University conducting theexamination only takes note of the views of theexpert committee for awarding marks. Thispractice has to be discontinued. When thepapers are set, choosing questions from thequestion bank already carrying the key answers,experts in the various disciplines have to bechosen to form the question bank and that shouldbe a step before conducting the examination andnot like the instant one in setting up theexpert committee ex post facto. All thequestions should be definite and so also theanswers provided. All efforts should be takenthat there should not be more than one correctanswer as a key answer and no room is given forcreating any confusion."16.The judgments cited by the learned Standing Counsel for therespondent to the proposition that the instructions given to thecandidates are binding on the candidates like prospectus, is thegeneral rule. But the above referred judgments are rendered takingexception to the said general rule.17.All these petitioners have appeared in the screening test,which was conducted after seven years. The petitioners may not be ina position to appear for the Group-I selection in any subsequentselection due to their over age and they having secured good marks inthe screening test and lacking behind by only 1.5 to 9 marks, byawarding marks for 1 to 6 questions, there is possibility for them toget qualified for the main written examination. The respondent inthe counter affidavit raised only a technical objection i.e., notraising objection within three days of the examination and notauthenticatedly stated that there is no mistake in the key answers,the petitioners are entitled to succeed in these writ petitions to alimited extent.18.In the light of the above findings and having regard to thejudgments cited supra, I am inclined to pass the following orders:(i)The petitioners herein are directed to submit representationpointing out the number of questions where the questions are notcorrectly asked, more number of answers are found correct as perleading text books and whether key answer to the questions arecorrectly given on or before 7.8.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii)On receiving the said representations the respondent/TNPSCis directed to place the disputed questions/answers before the ExpertCommittee to be constituted by it for verification as to whether thequestions pointed out are correct, if more than one answer given inthe choice are correct and whether the key answers given to anyquestion pointed out by the petitioners are wrong. (iii) On verifying the same, the Expert Committee is directed toaward marks to such of those petitioners who attempted the saidquestions and on that basis determine the final marks of thepetitioners in the preliminary examination.(iv)Since the above said exercise will take some time and inview of fixation of date for the main written examination as 16.8.2008and 17.8.2008, the respondent/TNPSC is directed to permit thepetitioners herein to write the main written examinations along with1750 candidates, who are already found eligible to write main writtenexamination.(v)By following the above process, if the petitioners aregetting the required cut-off marks prescribed for the respectivecategory, their final written examination papers shall be valued. Ifthe petitioners are not getting the required cut-off marks, theirfinal written examination papers need not be valued.(vi)Since the preliminary examination results were published asearly as on 25.4.2008, and the main written examination is to be heldon 16.8.2008 and 17.8.2008, the benefit of this order is restricted tothe writ petitioners herein, as no general directions could be issuedat this belated stage.All The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs.Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.vr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,Chennai - 600 002.1 cc to Mr.P.V. Rangarajan, Advocate, SR. 414394 ccs to Mr.R. Shivakumar, Advocate, SR. 414541 cc to Government Pleader, SR. 401963 ccs to Mr.M. Vijay Anand, Advocate, SR. 41504 to 415064 ccs t Mr.G. Rajan, Advocate, SR. 41688 to 416912 ccs to Mr.S. Subbiah, Advocate, SR. 41872W.P.No.12127/2008, etc.batchCK, RSK (CO)kk,sra,GKG,KM 1/8