Peria Karuppan.K v. The State of Tamil Nadu

ORDER Heard both sides.

2.The third respondent issued notification calling for applications from eligible candidates for the post of PG Assistant. The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of PG Assistant (Tamil). The petitioner was not successful in the selection process.

3.The case of the petitioner is that the final key answers announced by the third respondent in respect of two questions are palpably and demonstrably wrong and he should have been awarded two additional marks. If the petitioner is awarded two additional marks, the petitioner will be selected. With this prayer, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶4The standard that this Court will have to adopt in such cases is that the petitioner will have to show that the key answers are demonstrably wrong in the light of the materials relied on by the Board. Of courses, the materials relied on by the Board will have to be standard materials.

¶5According to the petitioner, key answer to Q.No.26 is incorrect. The question is as follows: 26/ **FHypdpJ ahHpdpJ vd;gjk; kf;fs; kHiyr; brhw; nfshjth;** ? vDk; FwSf;Fg; bghUshf mika[k; bka;g;ghL vJ> A: eif B: ,sptuy; C: bgUkpjk; D: ctif According to the petitioner, Option "A" is the correct answer. I called upon the learned Standing Counsel to demonstrate that option "C" chosen by the Board is a correct answer. The learned Standing Counsel produced the extract from Tholkappiyam (Volume – III part 2) Porulathigaram Commentary by Pavalereru Balasundaram published by Periyar University. The relevant paragraph is as follows:

(2) ,d;g[wyhtJ jkJ cilikfisa[k; bray;fisa[k; gw;wpjj; jhnk vz;zp kfpH;jy;/ v?L: FHypdpJ ahHpdpJ vd;gjk; kf;fs; kHiyr; brhw;nfsh jth; vd tUk;. ,Jt[k; ctiff;Fg; bghUshf mika[k;/ In the light of the material relied on by the Board, I have to conclude that option "C" is the correct answer and I cannot accept the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6.The second contention is that key answer to Q.No.84 is also wrong. It reads as follows: 84/ ,aw;bgah;f;fpstp vjidr; Rl;lhJ> A: cah;jpiz B: m`wpiz C: cs;Siw D: ,iwr;rp" According to the petitioner, option "D" is correct. According to the respondents Board, option "B" is the correct answer. The Board relies on the material found in the Commentary of Dr.Thamilannal on Tholkappiyam Sollathikaram. The relevant paragraph is as follows: 189/ ,iwr;rpg; bghUs;tapw;bra;a[Sl; fpsf;Fk; ,aw;bgah;f; fpstp cah;jpiz Rl;lh epyj;JtHp kU';fpw; nwd;w yhd/ xUrhh; ,aw;bgah;f;F chpanjhh; kut[ czh;j;Jjy; Ejypw;F/ va;jpaJ tpyf;fpaJkhk;/ ,?d; /; ,iwr;rpg; bghUs; vd;gJ bra;a[Ss; ciuf;fg;gLfpd;w

bghUl;g[wj;jhfpa

fUg;bghUs;. m`jhtJkht[k;.

g[s;Sk;

Kjyhapd/

mtw;wpd; nky; ,LFwpahfp tUk; ,aw;bgah; ? mtw;wpd;fz; bra;a[Ss; fpsf;Fk; ,aw;bgah;r; brhy; ? cah;jpizg; bghUz;ikiar; Rl;lh /; epyj;J tHpj;njhd;wyhd. v?W/ tHpa[k;. kU';Fk; xUbghUl;fz; ,Ubrhy; gphptpd;wp

te;jd/

vd;gbjd; brhd;dthbwdpd;.

,aw;bgah; vd;gjid ,Ujpizf;Fk; bghJbtd XjpdhuhapDk;. bra;a[sfj;Jf; fUg;bghUs; Mfp. epyj;JtHpj; njhd;Wk;

kht[k;

g[s;Sk;.

khKk; Kjyhapdtw;wpd;nky; ,LFwpahfp tUk; ,aw;bgah;. m`wpizg; bghUisr; Rl;Lk;ey;yJ cah;jpizg; bghUz;ikiar; Rl;lh vd va;jpaJ tpyf;fpathW. bra;a[sfj;J

,iwr;rpg;

bghUl;fz; njhd;Wk; ,aw;bgabud Xjy; ntz;oaJ m`wpizg; bghUl;fz; rhj;jd; bfhw;wd; vdtUk; ,aw;bgah; tHf;fpd;fz;/////// I am more than satisfied that the board has gone only by the second line. The second line could not have been divorced from the first line. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, only if the subject matter refers to birds and animals, even option "B" would have been correct. The petitioner in his representation has pointed out that the question itself has been generally worded and it has not taken note of the first line.

¶7This contention of the petitioner is well-founded. But then option "D" also does not appear to be correct. Even if I accept the case of the petitioner, the consequence can only be that the question itself will have to be deleted. In that event, everyone will be placed on the same footing. That again will not advance the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner can only have the academic satisfaction that his argument in respect of Q.No.84 has been accepted by this Court. It is not possible to award one mark for Q.No.84.

8.This writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

19.06.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No MGA To

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of School Education Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

2.The Commissioner, School Education Department, DPI Campus, College Road, Nunkambakkam, Chennai – 6.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. MGA and W.M.P(MD)No.17244 of 2022

19.06.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.06.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P(MD)No.17244 of 2022 K.Peria Karuppan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State represented by The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of School Education Secretariat, Chennai – 9. 2.The Commissioner, School Education Department, DPI Campus, College Road, Nunkambakkam, Chennai – 6. 3.The Teachers Recruitment Board, Represented by Member Secretary, DPI Campus, College Road, Nunkambakkam, Chennai – 6. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned rejection of he third respondent in R.C.No. 4089/E3/2020 dated 29.08.2022 and consequently direct the respondents herein to award two additional marks to the petitioner for question Nos.26 and 84 and consider him for appointment the post of PG Assistant / Tamil under Notification No.1/2021 dated 09.09.2021 and subsequent amendment notifications dated 03.08.2022 and 27.08.2022 issued by the third respondent. For Petitioner : Mr.Lakshmi Gopinathan for M/s.Polax Legal Solutions For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader for R.1 & R.2 Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Standing Counsel for R.3