##PAGE1##

W.A.Nos.201 & 202 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.01s.201 & 2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

W.A.Nos.201 & 202 of 2026

1.M.Anantharaj

2.A.Gopalakrishnan

3.K.Chinnamani

4.V.S.Gugan

5.V.Dhanalakshmi

6.S.Ramachandran ... Appellants in both W.As.

Vs.

Teachers Recruitment Board,

Represented by its Secretary,

3^rd and 4^th Floor, Puratchi Thalaivar,

Dr.MGR Centenary Building,

Perasiriyar Anbazhagan Kalvi Valagam,

DPI Complex, College Road,

Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondent in both W.As.

COMMON PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters

Patent to set aside the common order of this Court dated 02.01.2026

passed in W.P.No.49815 of 2025 & W.P.No.49806 of 2025.

Page 1 of 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 01:42:57 pm )

W.A.Nos.201 & 202 of 2026

For Appellants

in both W.As. : Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram,

Senior Counsel for

Mrs.Uma

For Respondents

in both W.As. :Mr.R.Neelakandan,

Additional Advocate General,

Assisted by

Mr.C.Kathiravan, Standing Counsel

JUDGMENT

(JUDGMENT MADE BY V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

These two writ appeals assail the common order passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.No.49806 of 2025 & W.P.No.49815 of

2015 dated 02.01.2026.

The writ petitioners are the appellants. The respondent had

issued a notification inviting applications from the eligible candidates

for the post of PG Assistants including Physical Education Director

Grade-I. The total number of vacancies was 101. The petitioners claim

that they were eligible and submitted their applications.

The respondent conducted a written examination on 12.10.2025.

The examination consisted of two parts. Part-A dealt with Tamil

Eligibility Test and Part-B with respect to the subject knowledge. The

results of the examination were published on 27.10.2025. The

Page 2 of 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 01:42:57 pm )

W.A.Nos.201 & 202 of 2026

petitioners had secured pass marks in Part-A and had secured the

following marks in Part-B:

1^st Petitioner (MBC category) : 91 marks

2^nd Petitioner (SC category) : 93 marks

3^rd Petitioner (ST category) : 92 marks

4^th Petitioner (BC category) : 89 marks

5^th Petitioner (SC category) : 89 marks

6^th Petitioner (BC category) : 93 marks

The petitioners state that when the key answers were released,

they discovered that in the subject knowledge examination ‘#’ symbol

had been affixed for question Nos.39, 40, 95, 97, 99, 149, 167 and

180. The petitioners state that the respondent had given the ‘#’ marks

to the aforesaid questions and without reasons or justification

awarded 8 marks to all the candidates irrespective of whether the

candidates had attempted these questions or whether the candidates

answered these questions correctly or erroneously. The petitioners

state the they had attempted all the eight questions and had given

correct answers. Hence, they filed the writ petitions challenging the

methodology adopted by the respondent of giving marks to all the

candidates who had appeared in the examination.

Page 3 of 11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 01:42:57 pm )

W.A.Nos.201 & 202 of 2026

The learned Single Judge came to a conclusion that the

methodology adopted by the respondent in granting marks to all the

candidates cannot be considered is rational and does not require

interference. Challenging the same, the present writ appeals.

We heard Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for Mrs.Uma for the appellants and Mr.R.Neelakandan,

learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.C.Kathiravan,

Standing Counsel for the respondent.

Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram urged that the questions for which ‘#’

marks had been given were correct and the respondent had

erroneously held that the eight questions had been wrongly framed.

She states that the petitioner had given the correct answers for the

questions so asked and therefore, they have been deprived of being

placed on par with the persons who have n