BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 27.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI WP(MD)No.36734 of 2025 M.Marichamy ... Petitioner Vs Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by Secretary, 3^rd and 4^th Floor, Puratchi Thalivar Dr.M.G.R.Centenary Building, Perasiriyar Anbazhagan Kalvi Valagam, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to select the petitioner to the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Botany) by awarding marks to master question No.52, 76 and 101 in the Written Exam conducted in pursuance to the Notification No.02/2025 dated

10.07.2025 within the time stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Louis For Respondent : Mr.T.Amjadkhan, Government Advocate

ORDER

The petitioner has applied for the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Botany) pursuant to the Notification No.02/2025 dated 10.07.2025 issued by the respondent/Teachers Recruitment Board. The petitioner, with a grievance that the answer key provided by the Teachers Recruitment Board for question Nos.52, 76, 101 is wrong and it needs to be revised, has submitted a representation and filed this writ petition.

2. When this writ petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel on either side, has referred to the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.47981 of 2025, which was filed questioning the answer key provided to various questions including question Nos.52,76, 101 and this Court, by order dated 16.12.2025, has dismissed the writ petition as under:

“6. On a perusal of the expert opinion, this Court is satisfied that the experts have opined that the answer key published by the 2^nd respondent is perfectly in order. 7. The very same issue came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta and others vs. The State of Rajasthan and others in Civil Appeal Nos.3649 and 3650 of 2020 wherein it has been categorically held that “it is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. The Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations.”

8. For better appreciation, Paragraph No.11 of the judgment (supra) reads as follows:

“11. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re- evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates (Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. MANU/SC/00401/2010 : (2010) 6 SCC 759) Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations [See- Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors.

MANU/SC/0530/2010 : (2010) 8 SCC 372). Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to reevaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. MANU/SC/1578/2017 : (2018) 2 SCC 357 held that court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the academic matters are best left to academics. This Court in the said judgment further held as follows:

“31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissa