PGTRB : 11-03-2014 முதுகலை தமிழாசிரியார் விடைகள் குறித்த நீதியரசர் நாகமுத்து அவர்களின் தீர்பாணை

N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.03.2014

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
W.P.No.1063 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
K.R.Vijaya
... Petitioner
-Versus-


1.The Teacher Recruitment Board
Rep. By its Chairman,
4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai 600 006.

2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai 600 006.
... Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revalue the Question Nos.45, 70 and 104 of Booklet Series "C" of the written Examination for direct recruitment of PG Assistant 2012-13 in Tamil conducted on 21.07.2013 and to proceed with selection for the post of PG Assistant in Tamil based on the revaluation with correct key answer and consequently direct the respondents to revalue the answer book of the petitioner (Roll No.13PG27010635) and to select the petitioner to the post of PG Assistant in Tamil based on such revaluation, within a time frame to be fixed by this court.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran
For Respondents : Mr.D.Krishna Kumar,
Special Govt. Pleader



ORDER
The Teachers Recruitment Board invited applications for direct recruitment to the vacancies for the year 2012-13 for the post of Post Graduate Assistants / Physical Education Directors Grade-I. The petitioner made application for the post of Post Graduate Assistant in Tamil. The written examination was held on 21.07.2013 which consists of 150 objective questions, each question carrying one mark. The Teachers Recruitment Board published the tentative key answers on 29.07.2013 and called for objections, if any, from the candidates concerned. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her objections in respect of the key answers to the Question No.45, 70 and 104.

2. The petitioner was under the impression that her objections were duly considered. However, due to some court cases, the final key answers were not published and it was delayed. The final key answers were published only on 23.12.2013. After having seen the same, the petitioner came to know that her objections regarding the key answers for the above three questions had not been considered properly. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 09.01.2014 challenging the key answers in respect of the above three questions. That is how, the writ petition is before this court for disposal.
3. Though the writ petition is listed today for admission, by consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal and the same is being disposed of by this order.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents and I have also perused the records carefully.

5. At the out set the learned Special Government Pleader raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of latches. According to him, though the tentative key answers were published on 29.07.2013 itself, the present writ petition came to be filed only on 09.01.2014, for which, there is no explanation at all. Thus, according to him, the writ petition is liable for dismissal on the ground of latches as it has been held in many other writ petitions filed before the Madurai Bench of this Court.

6. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not guilty of latches at all. So far as the subjects other than Tamil are concerned, the writ petitions were dismissed on the ground of latches because in respect of those subjects, the final key answers were published as early as on 07.10.2013 itself. But, so far as the final key answers in respect of Tamil subject are concerned, the same were published only on 23.12.2013. Thus, the petitioner is not guilty of latches,because in respect of those subjects, the final key answers were published as early as on 07.10.2013 itself. But, so far as the final key answers in respect of Tamil subject are concerned, the same were published only on 23.12.2013. Thus, the petitioner is not guilty of latches, the learned counsel contended.

7. I have carefully considered the above submissions.

8. Of course, it is true, that the Madurai Bench of this Court had dismissed a number of writ petitions on the ground of latches, but, those were pertaining to the candidates who had written their examinations in the subjects other than Tamil where the final key answers were published as early as on 07.10.2013 itself. But, so far as the Tamil subject is concerned, for some reasons or other, the final key answers were not at all published on 07.10.2013 and, as a matter of fact, the same were published only on 23.12.2013. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition because, according to the petitioner, her objections regarding key answers for the above said three questions were not considered properly.

9. In view of all the above, I hold that there is no latches on the part of the petitioner and so, this writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of latches.

10. Now, coming to the merits of the matter before going to examine the challenges regarding the key answers, it would be worthwhile to refer to the legal position. The law has been now too well settled, more particularly, in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when challenges are made in respect of key answers relating to objective type competitive examination questions, unless it is shown that the key answers are demonstrably wrong, it shall be presumed that the key answers set by the paper setters or experts are the correct key answers and the same shall not be interfered with by the court as the court is not an expert in the subjects. Keeping in view the above settled position of law and the principle stated therein, let us now go into the challenges made in respect of Question Nos.45, 70 and 104 to say whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the key answers are wrong.

11. Let me now consider the questions one after the other. Question No.45 reads as follows:-
Question No.45 'Bicycle' vd;gjd; fiyr; brhy;yhf;fk;
(A) irf;fps;
(B) Jtp rf;fu thfdk;
(C) (D) kpjptz;o
12. The tentative key answer was option D kpjptz;o and final key answer is also D . But, according to the petitioner the right answer is option C
13. Next comes Question No.70 which reads as follows:-
Question No.70 jkpH;bkhHp bgUik kpf;f giHa tuyhW cilajhFk; vd;W ciuj;jth;
(A) jPl;rpjh;
(B) bj/bgh/kP
(C) cwPuh!;;
(D) rhl;lh;$p

14. The tentative key answer is option A jPl;rpjh; and the final key answer is also option A . But, according to the objection of the petitioner, option C cwPuh!; is the right answer. For this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a book authored by one Dr.C.Balasubramanian under the Title jkpH; ,yf;fpa tuyhW wherein at page No.23 it is stated as follows:-
,g;bghGJ tH';Fk; vy;yh bkhHpfspYk; jkpnH kpfg;gHikahdJ vd;w bfhs;fia ,f;Tw;W nkYk; typa[Wj;jp epw;fpd;wJ. Vd;W cwPuh!; ghjphpahh; Fwpg;gpLfpd;whh;/
Referring to the same, the learned counsel would submit that option C is the correct answer. But, I find it difficult to accept the same. A simple reading of the above book would go to show that cwPuh!; has only reiterated the above version, which was already in practice. The experts have stated that option A is the right answer. The presumption as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University case [cited supra] is that the option A is the right answer because the same is the key answer set by the paper setter as well as by the experts. In this regard also I have to hold that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the key answer is wrong. Therefore, this challenge is also liable to be rejected.


15. Lastly, Question No.104 comes for consideration which reads as follows:-
Question No.104 fy;tpapy; Mdqf;F bgz; rkk; vd;w fUj;ij Kjd;Kjypy; gpujpgypj;jth;
(A) tpntfhde;jh;
(B) U:nrh
(C) fhe;jpaofs;
(D) jahde;j ru!;tjp

16. The tentative key answer as well as the final key answer is option B U:nrh . According to the petitioner option D jahde;j ru!;tjp is a wrong answer. In order to substantiate his submissions the petitioner has relied on a book known as ,e;jpa fy;tpapy; vjph; nehf;Fk; ,lh;ghLfs; wherein pages 44 it is stated as follows:-
bgz; fy;tp Fwpj;j U:nrhtpd; fUj;Jf;fs; ,d;iwa epiya[py; bghUj;jg;ghL cilait my;y/ Mz;fSf;Fr; rkkhd fy;tpia bgz;fSf;Fk; U:nrh ghpe;Jiu bra;atpy;iy/
The book upon which the petitioner relies has got no authenticity. It is not shown to this court that the said book has been authored by any historian or any Educationists. Even the author of the book is not known. Relying on the said book, which has got no authenticity, this court cannot hold that the key answer set by the paper setter is rebutted. Therefore, this objection is also liable to be rejected.

17. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the key answers in respect of Question Nos.45, 70 and 104 in C series are wrong and so, this writ petition is liable only to be dismissed.

18. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.

Index : yes 11..03..2014
Internet : yes
kmk

To

1.The Chairman, Teacher Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, E.V.K.Sampath Maligai,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai 600 006.

2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai 600 006.




S.NAGAMUTHU.J.,

kmk
W.P.No.1063 of 2014

11..03..2014