Courts should refrain from re-evaluating academic assessments and respect expert committee decisions unless clear evidence of error or malafides is presented.

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 10^th standard level for maximum of 50 marks in which the minimum qualification was 20 (40%) would be first held and the paper evaluated. Thereafter, the computer based test, objective type examination for Assistant Surgeon (General) with a maximum of 100 marks with qualifying marks of 30 for SC, SC Arunthathiyar and ST and 35 for others would be held. This would be evaluated only if the candidate obtains the qualifying mark in the Tamil Eligibility Test..

3. The petitioner had written her Tamil Eligibility Test and had obtained 18 marks. She claimed that the key answers for question Nos. 10, 25 and 35 were wrong and that the answers as given by her were correct. She therefore stated that if she had been given those three marks, her answer sheet for the main examination would have been evaluated.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General had produced the key answers for question Nos. 10, 25 and 35 as given by the Expert Committee and also the reference materials based on which those key answers had been determined.

5. The reference materials and the reasons for the key answers had also been disclosed to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

6. Thereafter, during arguments, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner conceded that the answer given by the petitioner for question No.10 was wrong but stated that the petitioner had correctly given the answer for question No.35 and further contended that there was an error in the question No.25. The learned Senior Counsel therefore contended that the petitioner must be granted two additional marks in the Tamil Eligibility Test.

7. Question No.25 is as follows:-

8. Both the petitioner and the respondents placed reliance on page No. 195 of the 10^th standard text book prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Government School Education Department as the answer to the above question. In Page No.195, it had been given as follows:-

9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had chosen option (A) while according to the respondents the correct answer is option (B). The learned Senior Counsel stated that both (A) and (B) are correct answers. It is thus contended that the petitioner should be granted one additional mark.

10. The petitioner had chosen an option (C). The respondents have stated that the correct answer option (B). The learned Senior Counsel stated that in the question in the word  had been wrongly given and therefore, claimed that the entire question is wrong and that therefore, one mark must be given.

11. The learned Additional Advocate General very fairly stated that he would not enter into a discussion on the correctness of the answers given by the experts and had placed a caution on the Court to venture into this exercise as the Court cannot consider itself as an Expert over and above, the Expert Committee which had examined the correctness of the question and the correctness of the key answer.

12. I have carefully consider