ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the high-handed action of the Respondent No.2 in treating the preliminary key as final key in all three sessions of computer based test conducted on 02.08.2023, without considering petitioner objections with regard to the incorrect answers and in not awarding another 2 marks for the said 2 questions, as the very action is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to cannons of Natural Justice and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the objections of the petitioner and to award 2 marks for correct answers and to pass…”

2. Heard Ms. M. Shalini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services, on behalf of respondent No.1 and Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 issued Notification No.3 of 2022 dated 30.12.2022, inviting applications for 5,204 vacancies for the position of Staff Nurses in various departments, and the petitioner, possessing all the requisite qualifications, applied for the said post. A total of 40,926 applications were received, exceeding the capacity available in the State to conduct Computer Based Test in a single shift. Consequently, the examination was conducted in three shifts on

02.08.2023, and the petitioner appeared in the first shift. After the examination, on 07.08.2023, respondent No.2 released the preliminary answer key on their website, allowing applicants to review and submit objections online within a specified period of two days i.e., from 05:00PM on 07.08.2023 to 05:00PM on 09.08.2023. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted her objections, along with the supporting documentary proof from the textbooks suggested/referred by the subject experts and recommended by the Government Colleges, within the allotted time frame, regarding two specific questions i.e., Question Nos.2 and 62 (Question IDs: 5262241062 and 5262241046 respectively), for which, respondent No.2 had provided incorrect answers in the preliminary key.

4. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner had chosen option No.2 (Hospital) for the question No.2, but the preliminary key listed the answer as option No.1 (Patient). Additionally, for question No.62, the petitioner chose option 4 (Iatrogenic infection), while the preliminary key indicated the correct answer as option 2 (Subclinical infection). Learned counsel contends that based on verification of authoritative sources recommended by Government Nursing Colleges, the correct answers for question Nos. 2 and 62 are option 2 and option 4, respectively. As such, she submitted her objections to respondent No.2 through the official website. Despite the incorrect answers in the preliminary key, respondent No.2 finalized the same and issued a web notice on 18.12.2023 stating that after considering the objections from the applicants, since there was no deviation between the preliminary key and the final key, the preliminary key is treated as final key in all three sessions.

5. Learned counsel further contends that respondent No.2 awarded 58.02584 marks to the petitioner without even considering her objections and if respondent No.2 considers the petitioner’s objections for adding marks to those two questions, then the petitioner would have a higher chance of selection. However, without correcting the wrong answers, respondent No.2 released the provisional merit list on 28.12.2023, treating the preliminary key as the final key, by which action, the petitioner is aggrieved and her rights are affected adversely. Therefore, the action of respondent No.2 in finalizing the key without considering the objections raised by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary