SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 414

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.
A. Dhanalakshmi – Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary, Department of School Education and Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 11303, 12989, 15627, 15603, 22132 & 22134 of 2023 & WMP. Nos. 11185, 11188, 12786, 15097 & 15098 of 2023
Decided On : 12-03-2024

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M.R. Jyothimanian, S. Ramachandran, M. Manikandan, V. Balamurugane, Advocates.
For the Respondent:S. Mythereye Chandru, Special Government Pleader, R. Neelakandan, Additional Advocate General, K. Sathish, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court cannot interfere with expert opinion on answer keys, cannot re-evaluate the answers, and must presume the correctness of the key answers. It cannot adjudicate academic matters.

Headnote:

Certiorari - Teacher Eligibility Test - [Article 226, Constitution of India] - [WP.No.11303 of 2023, WP.No.12989 of 2023, WP.No.15627 of 2023, WP.No.15603 of 2023, WP.Nos.22132 & 22134 of 2023] - The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the notification and result of the Teacher Eligibility Test, stating that it cannot interfere with the expert opinion on answer keys and cannot re-evaluate the answers. The court relied on previous judgments and held that it cannot adjudicate academic matters and must presume the correctness of the key answers.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the notification and result of the Teacher Eligibility Test, claiming that their objections to the answer keys were not properly considered, resulting in their disqualification despite being awarded marks for their objections.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that it cannot interfere with the expert opinion on answer keys and cannot re-evaluate the answers. It held that it cannot adjudicate academic matters and must presume the correctness of the key answers.

Issues: Challenging the notification and result of the Teacher Eligibility Test, consideration of objections to the answer keys, and qualification criteria for the test.

Ratio Decidendi: The court cannot interfere with the expert opinion on answer keys, cannot re-evaluate the answers, and must presume the correctness of the key answers. It cannot adjudicate academic matters.

Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ petitions challenging the notification and result of the Teacher Eligibility Test, stating that they are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

ORDER :

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in notification No.1/2022 dated 07.03.2022 and to quash the impugned result of the petitioner published by the third respondent dated 29.03.2023 bearing Roll No.22TET2103696456 and Enrolment No.TET 2221020572.)

1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the notification dated 07.03.2022 in notification No.1 of 2022, challenging the result published by the third respondent dated 29.03.2023 in pursuant to the said notification, challenging the answer key in respect of some of the questions and for direction to the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners to award grace marks for the wrong questions.

2. The second respondent issued notification vide Advertisement No.1 of 2022 dated 07.03.2022 inviting applications from eligible candidates for Teacher Eligibility Test Paper 1 and Paper II for the year 2022. All the petitioners applied and the second respondent conducted examination for Paper I and Paper II. After examination, on 22.02.2023, the second respondent had released the tentative key answers with the master question paper in PDF form. The candidates were instructed to submit their respective objections or representations with regards to the answer key. Accordingly, the candidates submitted their objections or representations within a stipulated time i.e. from 22.02.2023 to 25.02.2023. All the petitioners have raised their objections and also submitted their representations with regard to their respective questions and answer keys.

3. Insofar as the petitioner in WP.No.11303 of 2023, she raised objections for the answer keys of questions serial Nos.14, 35, 65, 69, 73, 99, 103, 114 and 139 in paper-II. Likewise the petitioner in WP.No.12989 of 2023 raised objections insofar as the answer keys of question Nos.81, 104 and 144 of paper-II. The petitioner in WP.No.15627 of 2023 raised objections for the answer keys of questions Nos.27 & 70 of paper II, the petitioner in WP.No.15603 of 2023 raised objections in respect of the answer keys of questions Nos.81 & 104 of paper II and the petitioners in WP.Nos.22132 & 22134 of 2023 raised objections in respect of the answer keys of question Nos.5, 74 & 79 of paper II.

4. The Teachers Recruitment Board had received 16409 objections in respect of 1346 questions in paper II from 3341 candidates including the petitioners herein. All the objections were taken for screening by respective subject experts. The candidates who submitted the proof from textbooks alone were considered by experts with the answer keys. The guides, correspondence course materials and non standard reference books were not entertained by Teachers Recruitment Board. Further, mere objections and representations were not considered without any evidence. Out of 16409 objections, 375 objections for paper II were scrutinised by the experts. Maximum objections were raised in respect of 87 questions by maximum candidates of 82. Totally 106 subject experts were deputed from various Government educational institutions and scrutinised their objections. The revised and final answer key have been arrived by experts. The opinion of the subject experts is final and further objections or representations on the answer key will not be entertained by the Board. Accordingly, some of the objections / representations were accepted and those were awarded marks. Accordingly, all the petitioners scored 81 marks. All the petitioners belong to BC category and they ought to have scored 82 marks to get qualified in the Teachers Recruitment Test. Though they were awarded marks as per their objections, they were not qualified in the Teacher Eligibility Test.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that if their objections for their respective questions were properly considered by the experts, they would have scored more than 82 marks and they will b

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top