Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.Karthikeyan, J
A.G.Rajasri – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government Health and Family Welfare Department – Respondent
ORDER :
C.V.Karthikeyan, J.
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent dated 02.02.2025 by which it had been stated that the petitioner had obtained less than 20 marks in the Tamil Eligibility Test held on 05.1.2025 and therefore she was ineligible for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General) and to quash the same and direct the second respondent to grant three additional marks for question Nos. 10, 25 and 35 to the petitioner which would take the mark of the petitioner to 21 in the Tamil Eligibility Test and therefore make her eligible to be called for verification of certificates and counselling for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General) pursuant to the notification No.1/MRB/2024 dated 15.03.2024 issued by the second respondent.
2. The petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General) consequent to the notification of the second respondent bearing No.1/MRB/2024 dated 15.03.2024. The scheme of the examination was Tamil Eligibility Test on 10th standard level for maximum of 50 marks in which the minimum qualification was 20 (40%) would be first held and the paper evaluated. Thereafter, t
Courts should refrain from re-evaluating academic assessments and respect expert committee decisions unless clear evidence of error or malafides is presented.
Judicial review in academic matters is limited; courts should defer to expert opinions unless clear malafide is demonstrated.
The court upheld that key answers in examinations are presumed correct unless candidates clearly demonstrate errors; judicial interference in academic matters is limited and should respect expert opi....
Courts should defer to expert committees' evaluations in academic matters unless mala fides are alleged; presumption of correctness applies to expert answers.
The court reaffirmed that examination key answers should be presumed correct unless explicit evidence shows otherwise, emphasizing judicial restraint in academic matters.
The court emphasized the need for restraint in challenging key answers and the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in recruitment disputes.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
