JUDGMENT :

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

1. The appellant Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board has challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8.11.2019, whereby the claim of the respondent petitioner that he had been prejudiced on account of an incorrect mark being awarded as a result of a wrong question framed by the appellant, came to be accepted by the learned Single Judge on an erroneous assumption of fact and exercising jurisdiction contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman and another v. Rahul Singh and another, (2018) 7 SCC 254.

2. The respondent petitioner comes up complaining that a bewildering puzzle in the shape of a meaningless question has played with the career of the respondent petitioner and his attempt to get it resolved was successful before the learned Single Judge on a rational consideration in view of the admitted fact that the question had been incorrectly framed.

3. The appellant Board conducted an examination for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Finger Print). Applications were invited for around 202 vacancies that were advertised through an Advertisement No. 2 of 2018 dated 29.08.2018. The respondent petitioner, who is working as a Grade II Police Constable in the Tamil Nadu Police Department, applied as a departmental candidate under 20% quota. The written examinations were conducted on 22.12.2018 wherein the respondent petitioner secured 57 marks. He was called for viva-voce, where he secured 5.30 marks, his grand total rising to 62.30. The respondent petitioner belongs to the Most Backward Community and the cut-off mark for the said category was fixed at 63.30. Thus, the respondent petitioner was short by one mark for being selected.

4. The case of the respondent petitioner is that the preliminary key answers of the examination were published on 24.12.2018 and according to the prescription in the advertisement, objections had to be filed within a week. He claims that one Arunachalam, who was also a candidate, had filed W.P. No. 5542 of 2019 questioning the correctness of one particular question viz., Question No. 117 in "A" series booklet. The said writ petition was entertained and the Court recorded the stand taken by the appellant that all 2388 departmental candidates who had attended the written examination were awarded marks uniformly for the said wrong question, as a result whereof, Arunachalam also succeeded in getting selected in the said category by virtue of the aforesaid pronouncement.

5. Encouraged by the order passed in the said case, which was in April 2019, the respondent petitioner sent his representation on 2.5.2019 to consider his claim in respect of another question, which was not attended to, hence, he filed the writ petition giving rise to this appeal.

6. In the case of the respondent petitioner, the wrong question complained of by him was Question No. 162 in booklet "A" series that had been attempted by him. The question as framed in English version is "The number of three digit number is ___"-Answers: (A) 729, (B) 901, (C) 899 and (D) 900. The said English version of one of the words of the question has been wrongly spelt in Tamil and it is the case of the respondent petitioner that since he had attempted his answers in Tamil, and there was just almost one minute to answer every question, he came to answer it on the basis of his own understanding, which was on account of the wrong framing of the question in Tamil. The respondent petitioner contends that the preliminary key answer, which was published on 24.12.2018 mentioned option "C" as the correct answer for the aforesaid question, but when the final answer key was published on 5.1.2019, it was reflected as option "D". The respondent petitioner urged that the final key answer published by the appellant is wrong and ther