IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.12.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and W.M.P. Nos. 53573 and 53574 of 2025

1. C.Senthilkumar

2. Dharani …Petitioners Vs.

1. The Director of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600006.

2. Teachers Recruitment Board, Represented by its Member Secretary, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006. ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2^nd Respondent Board with respect to the publication of the final key answer so far as the questions Nos.67, 85, 120, 136, 161, 43, 103, 52, 76, 101, 112, 130, 135, 145, 156, 155, 160, 161 and 162 and the consequential publication of the select list dated 27.11.2025 and quash the same so far as the non inclusion of the petitioner are concerned and consequently direct the Respondent Board to revise the key answers based on the Expert Committee constituted by the Court and accordingly revise and revalidate the answer sheet of the petitioners and appoint and select them to the post of PG Assistant Botany if the petitioners are come within the zone of consideration.

For Petitioners : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy, Senior Counsel for M/s.S.Suneetha For Respondents : Ms.Mythreye Chandru, Special Government Pleader (for R1)

Mr.R.Neelakandan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.C.Kathiravan (for R2)

O R D E R

The Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2^nd Respondent Board with respect to the publication of the final key answer so far as the question Nos.67, 85, 120, 136, 161, 43, 103, 52, 76, 101, 112, 130, 135, 145, 156, 155, 160, 161 and 162 and the consequential publication of the select list dated 27.11.2025 and quash the same so far as the non inclusion of the petitioner are concerned and consequently direct the Respondent Board to revise the key answers based on the Expert Committee constituted by the Court and accordingly revise and revalidate the answer sheet of the petitioners and appoint and select them to the post of PG Assistant Botany if the petitioners are come within the zone of consideration.

2.Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the second respondent. 3.The case of the petitioners is that pursuant to the notification issued by the 2^nd respondent to the post of Post Graduate Assistant in Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service for the year 2025, the petitioners have applied for the post of PG Assistant (Botany) and appeared for written examination conducted on 12.10.2025. The petitioners were not satisfied with the tentative key answers in respect of Question Nos.67, 85, 120, 136, 161, 43, 103, 52, 76, 101, 112, 130, 135, 145, 156, 155, 160, 161 and 162 and in the notification itself, the 2^nd respondent has stated that any objections with regard to the Tentative answer key shall be raised through Online mode within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the petitioners raised objections with supporting documents through online mode. However, without considering their objections, the 2^nd respondent published the final key answers and published the examination result on 27.11.2025, wherein the petitioners have secured 83 marks. However, the petitioners have not secured the cut off mark under their category. If the petitioners were awarded marks for the above said questions, they would have come within the zone of consideration and non awarding of marks, deprives their right to be considered for appointment to the post of PG Assistant. Challenging the key final key answers and select list dated 27.11.2025 published by the 2^nd respondent, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that it is settled l