Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
S. Sakthivel – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
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 p
Courts should defer to expert committees' evaluations in academic matters unless mala fides are alleged; presumption of correctness applies to expert answers.
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....
The court reaffirmed that examination key answers should be presumed correct unless explicit evidence shows otherwise, emphasizing judicial restraint in academic matters.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that re-evaluation of answer sheets is impermissible as per the advertisement and relevant rules. The court emphasized the importance of uniform ma....
The Court cannot interfere with expert opinion unless key answers are patently wrong, and there is no provision for re-evaluation.
Judicial review in matters of academic evaluation is limited, and courts should defer to expert opinions unless there are specific provisions allowing for re-evaluation.
Judicial review in academic matters is limited; courts should defer to expert opinions unless clear malafide is demonstrated.
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
