A.B.Sathish Kumar v. The Chairman Teachers Recruitment Board EVK Sampath Maaligai 4th Floor DPI Compound College Road Chennai-6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 26.02.2010CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPALW.P.No. 6853 of 2003andW.P.M.P.No.8825 of 2003A.B.Sathish Kumar ....PetitionerVs.The ChairmanTeachers Recruitment BoardEVK Sampath Maaligai 4th FloorDPI CompoundCollege RoadChennai-6 ....Respondent This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for the issuance of the writ of Certiorarifiedmandamus as stated therein. To direct the respondent to produce theanswer sheet of the petitioner in the written examination conductedby the respondent on 21.4.02 for the post of school Assistants andBlock Resource Teacher's for which results have been declare andannounced on 24.2.2003 and allow the petitioner to inspect the sameand direct the respondent to correct the mistake in the marks awardedto the petitioner after re-valution.For Petitioner: Mr.K.S.Kumar For Respondent : Mr.Mr.A.Suresh AGP(Education) O R D E RThe petitioner is filed the writ petition praying for theissuance of a writ of mandamus, in directing the respondent toproduce the answer sheet of the petitioner in the written examinationconducted by the respondent on 21.4.2002 for the post of SchoolAssistants and Block Resource Teacher's for which results have beendeclared and announced on 24.2.2003 and allow the petitioner toinspect the same and direct the respondent to correct the mistake inthe marks awarded to the petitioner after re-valuation and further to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ direct the respondent to reserve one seat for the post of BlockReserve Teachers(Physics) in the Recruitment conducted by therespondent vide advertisement 4/2002.2. The petitioner passed his 10th standard in the year 1990 and+2 course in the year 1992 after studying in M.M.Higher SecondarySchool, Idaikal. Later, he joined his bachelor's course in SriParamakalyani College Alwarkurichi and completed the Course in 1995.Subsequently, he joined B.Ed. Correspondence course of the AnnamalaiUniversity in the year 1996 and completed the said Course in 1997. Heenrolled his name with the Employment Registration Office atTirunelveli bearing registration No. 11203/97.3. The Government of Tamil Nadu proposed to recruit SchoolAssistant including language Pandits in the Tamil Nadu SchoolEducational Subordinate Service and Block Resource Teachers(BRT)(inthe scale of Pay of School Assistants) under the Sarvashiksha Abiyanthrough an open common written competitive examination and oncertificate verification based on merit and communal rotation andapplicable reservations and priorities. A direct recruitment noticewas advertised as Advertisement No.4/2002 inviting applications . Asper Advertisement the written competitive examination was scheduledon 21.4.2002 between 10.00 a.m and 1.00p.m., The petitioner appliedfor the post of Block Resource Teachers(Physics) and was issued witha hall ticket to write the examination conducted by the respondent on21.4.2002 and he was assigned the Roll NO.M 04020104. Hisexamination centre was at Mary Sargent Girls Higher Secondary School,Nagercoil Road, Palayamcottai, Tirunelveli District. The resultswere declared in June 2002. The valuation was made by the computerand a copy of the answer sheet (OMR Answer Sheet) would be furnishedto the candidate, if he desires to have the same.4. The questions were formulated for a total mark of 150 with 150questions each carrying one mark. The mode of answering the questionwas by darkening the circle of the answer made by the candidate . Thepetitioner was awarded 107 marks out of 149. Though, the questionswere for a total mark of 150, one question viz., 135 was deleted andtherefore, the marks were awarded only for 149 questions. Thepetitioner was ranked 107. Revaluation was ordered by the respondentin respect of the candidates since it was found that the keys to twoof the answers to the questions were wrong. He had answeredcorrectly for question Nos.70 and 75 as per the keys and his OMRAnswer Sheet(The duplicate of original mark sheet) Hence afterrevaluation his marks ought to be 109/149. viz, his earlier marks of107 plus the correct answer after revaluation. But the mark sheetafter revaluation shows only 107 marks and his rank was shown as 123.The revaluation marks wee announced by the end of June 2002.5. The petitioner made a representation on 3.7.2002 to therespondent with request to rectify the mistake in the revaluation of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his answer sheet. He also sent a telegram prior to hisrepresentation. He made enquires through his friends at Chennai inregard to the mistake committed by the respondent, but no reply wasforthcoming. After a lapse of six months , on 24.2.2003, therespondent announced the result by releasing a list of candidatesselected in the written examination held on 21.4.2002. He rushed allthe way from Tenkasi to meet the officials of the respondent andrepresented before them about the mistake but there was no response.6. Though the petitioner was awarded 107 in revaluation, if hisdate of birth 3.3.1975 was taken into consideration, then he rankjunior to many candidates. But all the candidates who scored 108marks were selected and as per the intimation sent to the selectedcandidates , certificate verification was scheduled on 5.3.2003.After coming out successfully in the written test conducted by therespondent due to mistake committed by the office of the respondent,the petitioner was not selected for appointment and he was deprivedof his legitimate rights. As the copy of mark sheet furnished to thepetitioner even before the revaluation, the same would show thequestion Nos.70 and 75 were correctly answered by him thereby he wasto get two marks more. Inasmuch as, there was a deletion of questionNo.40, after revaluation then the total marks would come to 148 andhis mark would be 108/148. In these circumstances, the petitioner hadfiled the above writ petition before this Court.7. The respondent in his counter had stated that the Teachers'Recruitment Board made an endeavour of a new method of announcingthe keys to the questions of the recruitment examination over theinternet, and also in giving a carbonless copy of the Answer Sheet atthe examination hall itself to the candidates and this was designedto ushering in transparency, accuracy, confidence building andaccountability on all the participants in the RecruitmentExamination. Continuing further, it is the stand of the respondentthat after the publication of written examination, the results in thedailies and in the internet. The Teachers Reserved Board receivedrepresentations from some of the candidates, mentioning that the keysalready published after careful consideration announced throughinternet, notice board, and dailies like Thinathanthi that candidatespossessing valid material for any doubtful questions or keys wouldbring them to the knowledge of the Board upto 5.00p.m., on 30.5.2002and the Board of verification consisting of two professors wasconstituted for revaluation one went through the disputed keys ineach subject and further it is on the recommendation offered by theSubject Experts, some answer keys were changed in certain subjectsand some questions were deleted and later the answer sheets of allthe candidates were revaluated and results were published. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8. Further the disputed questions 70 and 75 which were referredto by the petitioner wee already revised and marks also awarded tothe candidate. But his total marks remain the same. The petitioner'smarks are as mentioned below:Roll No.NameWritten test marks-------------------------Before afterrevaluationrevaluation communityMo4 020104 subject:PhysicsA.B.SathishKumar107/148107/148 BCAfter revaluation, the merit cum communal roster was again preparedand candidates were called for Certificate Verification. Thepetitioner was also considered under the communal turns applicable tohim(GT General and BC General).9. The cut off marks for the subject Physics in the first roundof selection (July 2002) was hereunder:SubjectCommunity turnCut off marks PhysicsG.T.General turn------------------------BC General 114/148------------------------ 109/148In order to fill the unfilled and residual vacancies, a second roundof selection was made in February 2003 and the cut marks for thesecond round of BRT Selection were as below:SubjectCommunity turnCut-off marks PhysicsGT General Turn------------------------BC General Turn 108/148------------------------ 107/14810. That apart, the stand of the respondent as per the counterwas that the petitioner was not selected because he obtained lowestcut off mark of 107 out of 148 in the written examination and therewere several other candidates belonging to the same communal turn BC(G) who secured the same marks. As per the instructions of theGovernment, when ever two or more candidates secured the same markinter-se seniority was decided on the basis of seniority in age and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner date of birth was 3.3.1975 and the cut off date ofbirth for selection for 107 marks in BC(G) category (in the secondround) was 5.6.1971 and that candidate was raked 107 in the meritlist whereas the petitioner was ranked 123 merit list. 11. In the third round of selection conducted in May 2003, thepetitioner was qualified for selection and hence he was provisionallyselected and called for Certificate Verification on 14.5.2003. Thepetitioner had accepted the selection and produced the certificatesfor verification and received the final selection order dated19.5.2003. The petitioner filed the present writ petition before thisCourt, after the second round of selection and this Court passed aninterim direction on 7.3.2003 that the selection list should not befinalised until further orders. But the interim order of this Courtwas received by this Board only on 18.3.2003 and therefore, the Boardpublished the results on 11.3.2003 and selected candidates were alsoinformed of the selection and therefore, on receipt of this Court'sinterim direction, it was decided by the Board that one post may bekept vacant for the petitioner in obedience to this Court's order. Asa matter of fact, the petitioner was no way adversely affected andselection to the posts of Block Reserve Teacher(Physics) were madestrictly in accordance with the Government orders and that thepetitioner accepted the selection in the third round and as such thewrit petition is devoid of merits.12. In the additional counter filed by the respondent, it wasmentioned inter alia that on the recommendation of the SelectionCommittee two wrong questions viz., Q.Nos.14 and 135 were deleted andkey answer 70 and 75 were changed and the answer sheets of all thecandidates were re-valuated and results were published and hence thefollowing changes were carried over during the revaluation.1. The wrong question No.14 and 135 were deleted2. The answer keys were changed for the following questions QuestionNo.Wrong Answer Key Changed to70 A B75 C A and moreover, the petitioner had not properly shaded answer forQuestion No.149 and an impression was not cleared and therefore,computer had not valued the question No.149 and before revaluationthe candidate had scored only 105 out of 148. Further afterrevaluation of answer sheets based on the scrutiny committee, thepetitioner was awarded two marks for the question Nos.70 and 75 as heshaded the correct answer as B and A for the above questions andafter revaluation, the total marks was declared as 107 out of 148 butthe cut off marks for the first round of selection in the BCCommunal turn was 109/148 and hence the petitioner could not beselected for the first round of selection and that the selection to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the post of Block Resource Teachers were done strictly in accordancewith Government order.13. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it was interalia mentioned that' in the original counter, it was stated by therespondent in paragraph 6" Before revaluation the marks obtained bythe petitioner was 107/148. But in the additional counter, it wasstated in page 2 that' the results were published on 20.5.2002 andthe marks obtained by the writ petition were 107 out of 150. Thetotal marks mentioned in the original counter was 148 and in theadditional counter as 150 and both these contentions were wrong andas per the answer key (before revaluation ) one question ie.,Question No.135 was deleted and hence the total number of questionswould be only 149 and not 148 or 150 as stated in the counter and theadditional counter filed by the respondent and the admitted case ofthe respondent was that before revaluation, the petitioner's mark was107 and therefore, the marks obtained by him was 107/149 and afterpublication of the results, the answers for two questions ie.,Question Nos.70 and 75 were changed and before revaluation as peranswer key for Question No.70A, the petitioner had answered"B" andfor question No.75, the petitioner had answered "A". But the answerkeys are "A" and "C" respectively and therefore, no marks wereawarded to the petitioner and his marks were only 107/149. Afterrevaluation as per the answer key, for Question No.70-B, thepetitioner answer was "B" and for question No.75-A, his answer was"A" and in revaluation all the candidates who had answered"B" forquestion NO.70 and"A" for question No.75 were given two marks and assuch the petitioner was given two marks and his total marks came to107 + 2 = 109. After revaluation one more question ie., questionNo.14 was also deleted and therefore, the total number of questionswere reduced to 148(since two questions viz., question Nos.135 and 14were deleted out of 150 questions).14. Moreover , after revaluation, the petitioner's mark was107+2=109 and inasmuch as one question was deleted viz., questionNo.14 , his marks would be 109-1 = 108/148(150-2) but the respondentstated that the marks were only 107 even after revaluation and afterverification of the answer sheet with the answer keys provided bythe respondent, it could be seen that the petitioner had answered 108questions correctly out of total 148 questions(since two questionswere deleted) and hence the petitioner's marks could be only 108/148and not 107/148. Also, if the petitioner was awarded with the correctmarks viz., 108/148 then he would have been selected in the secondround of selection itself so as to complete 30 years of serviceentitling him to claim full pension benefits and the third round ofselection and the appointment was made in December 2003 and if thepetitioner was awarded correct marks viz., 108 marks, he would haveappointed in March 2003 itself( second round of selection) andtherefore, he would have been obtained the benefits of pension underthe old pension scheme and new pension scheme had come into force https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from 1.4.2003. In short, the petitioner was appointed only inDecember 2003 had lost one year in promotion and he was promoted asSecondary Grade Teacher only in 2008 though he would have gotpromotion in 2007 itself even he was awarded 108 marks and appointedin the second round of selection in March 2003 itself and addedfurther as per Pension Rules, pertaining to the Government Servantsonly if a person had completed 30 years of service, he would beeligible to claim full pension and since the petitioner was appointedonly in the third round of selection, he would be lacking sevenmonths of service to put in 30 years of service.15. On the side of the petitioner, a comparative score of markswas furnished to this Court indicating that out of 150 questions,question Nos.14 and 135 were deleted and therefore, out of 148questions, the petitioner had scored 108 marks. In the saidcomparative score of marks projected by the petitioner , thepetitioner had given details of question numbers, key answer, secondkey answer and his answer and the marks to be awarded thereto.16. Per contra, on the side of the respondent, a comparativescore of marks was submitted before this Court showing questionNos.14 and 135 were deleted and the marks to be awarded by thepetitioner was 107 out of 148.17. In the present case on hand, the petitioner beforerevaluation had scored 105 out of 148 and after revaluation of answersheet, the petitioner was awarded two marks for question Nos.70 and75 since he shaded the correct answer as "B" and "A" for the saidquestions and therefore, after revaluation his total marks would be107 out of 148.18. The bone of contention of the respondent is that thepetitioner had not properly shaded the answer for question No.149because of the fact that the impression was not clear and thereforethe computer had not valued the said question.19. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitsthat the petitioner had shaded the answer as "C" for question 149 andsince the correct answer was "C", the petitioner should be given onemark and if one mark was awarded then the petitioner's tally of markwould come to 108 out of 148. In this connection, this court pointsout that in the instructions to candidate, Sl.NO.5 referred to 'circle should be darkened completely so that the alphabet inside thecircle is not visible' and after perusing the xerox copy of OMRanswer sheet in respect of the petitioner bearing NO.1010515, thisCourt is of the considered view that the petitioner darkened thecircle"C" completely but on the left hand side of the circle hadstrayed a bit. For that the act of the petitioner should not bepenalised and in any event, the contention of the respondent thatthe impression was not clear in question No.149 when the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ shaded the answer and as such the computer had not valued the saidquestion was not a tenable one and this Court opines that thepetitioner should be awarded with one mark for the question No.149since he had shaded the correct answer and impression was good and ifthe said one mark was to be taken into account and included then,the tally of marks scored by the petitioner would come to 108 out of148 to which the petitioner was entitled to quite legitimately andrightly so. Therefore, the petitioner's correct tally of marksshould be 108 out of 148 and not 107 out of 148 projected by therespondent and accordingly, this Court directs the respondent tocorrect the mistake in the marks awarded to the petitioner as 108 outof 148 and further the respondent is to act in terms of its counterin paragraph 13 wherein it among other things had stated that'immediately on receipt of the High Court's interim direction, itwas decided by the Board that one post may be kept vacant for thepetitioner,within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order and resultantly, this Court allows the writpetition in the interest of justice. No costs. Consequently,connected WPMP is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar./true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar.sgToThe ChairmanTeachers Recruitment BoardEVK Sampath Maaligai 4th FloorDPI CompoundCollege Road,Chennai-6+ 1 cc to M/S.K.S.Kumar, Advocate Sr 13005 Order in W.P.No.6853/2003RV (CO)RH (5.3.10)