Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S.Sundar, C.Saravanan, JJ
K. Gomathi – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman cum Director General of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C. SARAVANAN, J.
This Intra Court Appeal is preferred against the impugned order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.11846 of 2021.
2. The Appellant/Writ Petitioner had preferred the aforesaid Writ Petition W.P.No.11846 of 2021 for the following relief:-
“For issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the Respondent in its Sub-Inspector of Police – 2019 Provisional Selection List of Department Candidates for Character and Antecedents Verification & Medical Examination – 2019 dated Nil published through Online dated 15.04.2021 of the respondent and to quash the same as being illegal and unsustainable in law and for a consequential direction to award one mark (0.5 + 0.5 marks) to the petitioner for Question No.23 & 53, B-Series Question type, department candidate based on the One Man Committee report dated 22.01.2021 and order of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.197 of 2021 dated 16.02.2021 and include the petitioner name in the final Sub-Inspector of Police-2019 Provisional selection list of department candidates for character and antecedents verification & Medical Examination 2019 and pass such and further orders which may deem fit and
The court held that delay in filing a writ petition does not bar relief if the cause of action arises from new information, such as a report indicating errors in examination answers.
The Department must uniformly apply corrections to examination scoring errors to all affected candidates, ensuring no discrimination and timely relief without waiting for individual petitions.
The duty of authorities to consider representations from aggrieved persons and the importance of considering subsequent developments in a case.
The finality of public examination results and the reluctance to interfere with expert decisions, as well as the absence of provisions for re-evaluation in the rules, precluded the petitioner's right....
The court has the authority to direct the appointment of an Expert Committee to examine the correctness of the answers and can order the appointment of a candidate with seniority and incremental bene....
Courts should be cautious in interfering with the evaluation process and expert opinion, especially after a significant period has passed.
The main legal point established is that the plea for parity with appointed candidates is not applicable if the petitioner had not been appointed, and the court has the authority to quash an order if....
The court established that discrepancies in examination marking must be addressed fairly for all candidates, emphasizing the importance of accurate answer keys in recruitment processes.
Courts should defer to expert committees' evaluations in academic matters unless mala fides are alleged; presumption of correctness applies to expert answers.
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
