Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RSUBRAMANIAN, K.SURENDER, JJ
K.Indirapriya – Appellant
Versus
The Chairman The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission – Respondent
Writ Petition No.26793 of 2025
Important Points
Subject
Judicial Review - Writ Jurisdiction
Headnote
Findings of Court:
The court found the answers not deserving of marks.
Issues: The main question was the validity of denying re-evaluation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that re-evaluation is not permissible as per instructions.
Result: The Writ Petition is dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Deeraj, M/s.PV Law Associates
For the Respondents: Mr.P.J.Rishikesh, Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. re-evaluation not permissible. (Para 1 , 2) |
(Order of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The prayer is for revaluation of the answer sheet of the petitioner.
The petitioner had participated in the main examination for recruitment of Civil Judges Junior Division held on 04.11.2023 and 05.11.2023. It is the grievance of the petitioner that she has been given ‘zero’ marks for two questions. The instructions to the candidates issued very clearly states that there cannot be a revaluation of the answer sheets.
2. The learned counsel would however implore us to direct revaluation on the ground that the petitioner has not been given any marks for her answers to question Nos.6 and 8. Despite the efforts of the learned counsel in taking us through the answers, we find that the answers are not pertinent and they do not deserve any marks. We are not to be mistaken as pronouncing on the merits of the matter, only for the satisfaction of the learned counsel, we had gone through the answers given by the petitioner to the two questions. We do not think that the examiner was wrong in not giving any marks for these two questions.
3. Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
