Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
M. Velmurugan – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary To Government Home Department – Respondent
ORDER :
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
The challenge in this writ petition is to the communication in C. No. R-1/1081/2011 dated 26.04.2011 issued by the fourth respondent. By the said communication, the petitioner’s request for awarding additional marks for Question Nos. 11, 38, and 44 in the examination conducted for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 2006 came to be rejected.
2. While the petitioner was working as a Grade-I Police Constable, a notification dated 19.07.2006 was issued by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB), inviting applications for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. In response to the said notification, the petitioner applied for the post. During the selection process, a physical efficiency test was conducted by the Recruitment Board, which the petitioner successfully completed. Thereafter, a written examination was conducted on 20.05.2007, followed by a viva-voce.
3. In the written examination, the petitioner admittedly secured 76 marks out of 100. He therefore claimed that he came within the zone of consideration for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police (Taluk), i.e., independent charge of a police
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.
Courts should be cautious in interfering with the evaluation process and expert opinion, especially after a significant period has passed.
The Answer Key for a selection test is presumed correct unless clearly demonstrated to be wrong, and without such proof, courts will not interfere with selection outcomes.
Fraud in evaluation nullifies the validity of the selection process, allowing for judicial intervention despite delays in challenging seniority.
Courts should defer to expert committees' evaluations in academic matters unless mala fides are alleged; presumption of correctness applies to expert answers.
The duty of authorities to consider representations from aggrieved persons and the importance of considering subsequent developments in a case.
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.
The court affirmed that academic evaluations should not be judicially interfered with unless glaring errors are evident, emphasizing adherence to procedural timelines for objections.
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
