IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI and WMP.Nos.55026 and 55027 of 2025 K.Ganesan Petitioner Vs

1. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Director Of School Education, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.

3.Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep by its Chairman, 4th Floor, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 606 006.

… Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of declaration to declare that the petitioner is eligible for additional marks in the competitive examination conducted by the 3rd Respondent on 12.10.2025 and consequentially eligible to be appointed as Post Graduate Assistant- Botany pursuant to the recruitment notification No.2/2025 dated 10.07.2025.

For Petitioner : Ms.N.Kavitha Rameshwar For Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.C.Kathiravan (TRB) Mrs.Mythreye Chandru (R1 and R2)

Special Government Pleader

ORDER

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the third respondent.

3.The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the notification issued by the 3^rd respondent to the post of Post Graduate Assistant in Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Educational Service for the year 2025, the petitioner has applied for the post of PG Assistant (Botany) and appeared for written examination conducted on 12.10.2025. The petitioner was not satisfied with the tentative key answers in respect of Question Nos.43, 45, 52, 84, 101, 145, 160,161 & 167 and in the notification itself, the 3 rd 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 petitioner raised objections with supporting documents through online mode. However, the 3^rd respondent published the final key answers and published the examination result on 27.11.2025, by granting marks for two questions viz., 45 and 67 out of nine questions, wherein the petitioner has secured 79 marks. However, the petitioner has not secured the cut off mark under their category. If the petitioner was awarded marks for the above said questions, he would have come within the zone of consideration and non awarding of marks, deprives his right to be considered for appointment to the post of PG Assistant. After publication of the final answer key, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the 3^rd respondent on 02.12.2025, requesting them to award 7 marks for the aforesaid questions, by enclosing the relevant supporting text book materials for the aforesaid questions. As the same was not considered, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking for the relief stated supra.

4.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that it is settled law that if the key answer published by the 3^rd respondent is probably wrong, this Court could exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to appoint an Expert Committee and after obtaining opinion from the expert, this Court may show that the tentative key answers published by the 3^rd respondent in respect of certain questions are wrong and can award mark to the such questions to enable the petitioners to be selected to the above post. In support of her contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rishal and Others vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Others reported in (2018) 8 SCC 81. Further, she has placed heavy reliance on the approved text books by the State Government to substantiate that the answers given in the final key list is wrong, with respect to the aforesaid 7 questions and though the petitioner has answered