High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD)No.2015 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 19.09.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSEW.P.(MD)No.2015 of 2022andW.M.P.(MD).No.1732 of 2022M.Rajasekhar... PetitionerVs.1.The Director, Directorate of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006.2.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, E.V.K. Sampath Maligai, College Road, Chennai-600 006.... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to award additional mark for the Question No.21 of 5th batch examination conducted on 16.02.2020 Forenoon by the respondent No.2 for the post of Block Educational Officer and to re-value the petitioner's answer sheet: to award additional mark for the Question Nos.4, 48, 50, 114 and 138 of 5th batch examination conducted 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2015 of 2022on 16.2.2020 forenoon by the Respondent No.2 for the post of Block Educational Officer and to re-value the petitioner's answer sheet: To call at least 240 candidates for the Certificate Verification for the Direct Recruitment for the post of Block Educational Officer in Elementary Education Department for the year 2018-2019' that is scheduled to be held on 19.01.2022 and 20.01.2022 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.For Petitioner : No AppearanceFor R-1: Mr.S.Shaji Bino, Special Government PleaderFor R-2: Mr.T.Amjad Khan,Standing CounselO R D E RIn this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the key answers provided by the respondents. 2. According to the petitioner, the key answers are incorrect and if the correct answer keys were provided, the petitioner claims that he would have been selected. 3. A common counter-affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. In the counter-affidavit, the second respondent has stated as follows:2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2015 of 2022“8. It is submitted that wherever there is any error in the questions or options given by the TRB, the Board would award marks for all the candidates irrespective of the options chosen by the candidates. A Star mark would be specified for all such questions. The Star Mark * indicates that one mark will be awarded to all candidates invariably to that question. In respect of 5th session Question paper, five questions carries star mark viz, 4, 48, 50, 114. 138. For all the five questions marks have been awarded for all the candidates in the 5th session.9. It is submitted that the petitioner in the affidavit stated that he has secured 89.64932 in the computer Based Examination and the normalized marks awarded to him was 89.68987. The petitioner avers that he would get at least 4 marks in addition even after normalisation. It is further submitted that the Normalization of marks will be done only by electronic system through standardized programme and not manually.10. It is submitted that since the Board conducted Computer Based Test in six sessions on 14.02.2020 and 16.02.2020, the Board followed Normalization procedure.The methodology followed in normalization process was mentioned in the notification itself and same is as follows:3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2015 of 2022"Normalization of the marks:The online Computer Based Examination may be conducted in multiple sessions. Whenever online Computer Based Examination is conducted in multiple sessions based on the same syllabus, same pattern for candidates having same eligibility criteria, the raw marks obtained by the candidates in different sessions will be converted to normalized marks. A candidate will be permit to appear only in one session.In case if there is only one session, actual marks obtained by the candidates will be used for calculating the merit list.iv. Calculation of normalized marks for multi-session papers.In case of multi session papers, a suitable normalization is applied to take into account any variation in the difficulty levels of the question papers across different sessions.The following Normalization formula for calculating the normalized marks for the multi-session paper is adopted as followed in various Competitive Examinations in India.Normalization mark of jth candidate in ith session is given by: 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2015 of 202211. It is submitted the Board has scrutinised the five questions mentioned hereunder and that the petitioner has already been awarded marks with respect to the question numbers: 4, 48, 50, 114 & 138. The Board cannot award additional marks for these five questions to the candidate and his marks remain 89.68987 only.12. It is submitted that in regard to question no.21; based on the Expert Committee Reports, the Key answer of the Board is correct and the Evidences in relation to question no.21 and the Expert Committee report are submitted herewith.13. It is submitted that the petitioner belonging to SC category secured 89.68987 marks. The minimum eligible cut-off mark for SC category as per the Provisional Selection List 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2015 of 2022published by the Board on 04.02.2022 is 92.82637 marks. Since the petitioner has secured only 89.68987 marks he was not considered for selection.4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent has placed on record the following authorities:a. 2018 0 AIR (SC) 52 in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others;b. 2018 0 AIR (SC) 2861 in the case of U.P.P.S.C., through its Chairman and another Vs. Rahul Singh and another; 5. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the Court should presume correctness of key answers and proceed on that assumption. He would further submit that the Courts should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize answer sheets of candidate as it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics. Therefore, he would submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable. 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2015 of 2022 6. On the last hearing date i.e., 09.09.2025, the very same submission was made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent. In view of the said submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought time to get instructions. Today, there is no representation on the side of the petitioner.7. In the case of Ran Vijay Singh referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued directions with regard to the re-evaluation of mark sheets. The directions are as follows:(i). If a Statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;(ii).If a Statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit the re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;(iii).The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2015 of 2022expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;(iv),The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and(v).In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.8. In the case of U.P.P.S.C., through its Chairman and another Vs. Rahul Singh and another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that the onus to demonstrate incorrectness of key answers lies on the candidate and the Constitutional Court must exercise great restraint in such matters. Therefore, it is made clear from the aforesaid decisions that Courts should presume the correctness of key answers and the burden lies on the candidate to disprove them.9. In view of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when there is no evidence placed on record by the petitioner to conclusively prove that the key answers are incorrect, the question of entertaining this writ petition does not arise. Therefore, the question of issuing mandamus in favour of the petitioner as sought for by him in this writ petition does not arise.8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2015 of 202210. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.19.09.2025NCC:yes/noIndex:yes/noInternet:yes/noTSGToThe Director, Directorate of School Education,DPI Campus,College Road, Chennai-600 006.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD)No.2015 of 2022ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.TSGW.P.(MD)No.2015 of 202219.09.202510/10