Courts should defer to expert committees' evaluations in academic matters unless mala fides are alleged; presumption of correctness applies to expert answers.

ORDER :

1. The writ petition has been filed in the nature of a mandamus seeking a direction against the third respondent, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board at Chennai to grant marks to the petitioner in respect of question Nos. 7, 24 and 91 in respect of Question Booklet series B. The petitioner claims that the petitioner had given correct answers for the aforementioned questions and therefore, he claims that he should have been granted ½ mark for each question, which would increase the total marks of the petitioner by another 1 ½ marks.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated by the petitioner that he is now serving as Grade I Traffic Police Constable in Traffic Investigation Wing at Adyar. It had been stated that a notification had been issued by the third respondent in Notification No.1 of 2023 dated 05.05.2023 inviting online applications for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police including Taluk, Armed Reserve and Tamil Nadu Special Police. The commencement of the filing of online application was 01.06.2023 and the last date of submission of online application was 30.06.2023.

3. The selection process involved written exams in two parts, the first part being the Tamil language eligibility test and second part being the main written examination. This would be followed by certificate verification for the Police Departmental Quota. There would also be an endurance test and finally, there would a viva-voce. After the completion of the recruitment process, the selection list is drawn based on the total marks obtained in the main written examination and the viva voce for the department candidates. These candidates like the petitioner are exempted from physical efficiency test except endurance test. Thereafter, there will be a medical examination followed by the police verification.

4. The petitioner appeared for the preliminary and main examinations on 26.08.2023 and 27.08.2023 respectively. He claims that he had secured 71.5 marks out of 85 marks. The petitioner then participated in the physical endurance test on 07.11.2023. He was then called upon to attend viva voce. He claims that he had obtained 9.75 marks out of 10 marks in the viva voce, which was conducted on 08.01.2024. The petitioner claims that he had obtained 81.25 marks out of 100 marks.

5. The petitioner claims that he had raised objections by letter dated 29.09.2023 for the key answers published for the preliminary examination. After examining the objections raised by the various candidates, a final answer key was published by the third respondent in which there were certain amendments made to the initially published key answers. It was found that the answer key for the three questions, for which the petitioner had raised objections, were not corrected. Thereafter, the third respondent published the list of candidates, who had been provisionally selected and who had been undergone medical examination and the police verification. The petitioner was also provisionally selected. The petitioner then gave a representation on 29.09.2023 seeking additional marks relating to question Nos.7, 24 and 91 in the booklet categoris