BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09/08/2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
W.A.(MD)No.438 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Government Examinations,
Fort. St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director of Government Examinations,
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Joint Director (Re-Valuation),
Directorate of Government Examination,
College Road, Chennai - 600 006.
4. The Director of Medical Education,
Directorate of Medical Education,
Chennai - 600 010.
5. The Secretary,
Selection Committee,
Directorate of Medical Education,
Chennai - 600 010. ....... Appellants
Vs
1. Mark. Jittu Vincent,
S/o. K. Vincent,
Vins Hospital,
Market Road,
Kaliayakkavilai,
Kanyakumari District.
2. The Principal,
Christuraja Matriculation Hr. Sec. School,
Marthandam,
Kanyakumari District. ....... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the order
dated 16.07.2010 passed in W.P.(MD)No.8458 of 2010.
!For Appellants ... Mr. V. Rajasekaran
Special Government Pleader
^For Respondents ... Mr. Issac Mohanlal for R-1
- - - - - - - -
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.MURUGESAN, J.)
Mr. Issac Mohanlal, learned counsel takes notice for the first
respondent.
2. This Writ Appeal is filed at the instance of the Secretary,
Department of Government Examinations, Chennai, questioning the order dated
16.07.2010 allowing the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.8458 of 2010.
3. The Writ Petition pertains to Question No.19 of Part III –
BIOLOGY (English Version) paper for Higher Secondary Examinations conducted
during March 2010 and the corresponding answer. Question No.19 of Section – B
of that Question Paper is as follows:-
“19. Draw and label the parts of acrocentric chromosome”.
4. The candidate viz., the first respondent herein has answered the
question in the following manner:-
The answer to the question carries three marks. The first respondent was not
given that three marks on the ground that he had not correctly positioned the
diagram.
5. The first respondent / candidate had approached this Court with
a specific case that Acrocentric Chromosome do not have static position as it is
movable and the long arm can be vertically upward or the long arm can also be
downward and the entire Chromosome may also be in a horizontal position. Hence,
the answer given by the first respondent is correct. Further, the grievance of
the candidate is that by that question, a candidate could understand that he
should draw the diagram without reference to its position of the Acrocentric
Chromosome and thereafter, label the parts. Inasmuch as he had chosen to draw
the Acrocentric Chromosome and had shown its part viz., Centromere in the just
below the middle of Chromosome, there is nothing wrong in drawl of the diagram
and the answer given mentioning the parts. His further grievance is that he had
been unjustly denied of three marks. In support of the said claim, the learned
counsel appearing for the first respondent had relied upon the following books:-
1.”Genetics and Evolution” by P.L.Kochhar;
2.”Gentetic and Eugenics” by Dr. O.P.Saxena
3.”Elements of Cytology” by Prof. T.S.Gopalakrishnan.
With the above grievance, the first respondent had prayed for grant of award of
full three marks to the said question.
6. While opposing the writ petition, the appellant herein had merely
stated that in such event, the matter may be referred to the examiner himself
for clarification to find out as to why he had not awarded the marks.
7. At this stage, we may refer that it is not as if the appellant
had objected to the writ petition on the ground that the question was wrong and
only the objection was that the reason for not awarding mark was not known.
8. Having considered the three books relied on by the learned
counsel appearing for the candidate and having taken note of the fact that it is
not a matter to be referred to the concerned examiner himself in view of the
specific answers in those books, the learned Single Judge directed to award full
three marks to the candidate, which order has given a cause for the present Writ
Appeal.
9. We have heard the submissions of Mr.V.Rajasekaran, learned
Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr. Issac Mohanlal,
learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.
10. According to Mr. V. Rajasekaran, learned Special Government
Pleader, in the authorized Text Book of BIOLOGY subject, the position of
Centromere is shown just above the middle portion of Acrocentric Chromosome. On
the other hand, in the answer given by the candidate, “Centromere” has been
shown just below the middle of Chromosome, which is not as per the said Text
Book. The examiner has considered the answer only with reference to the actual
answer given in the Text Book. Learned Special Government Pleader would further
submit that even otherwise, in a matter like this regarding the valuation of
answer sheets, the learned Single Judge ought to have referred the matter to the
experts instead of placing reliance on the books relied on by the candidate and
ought not to have ordered adding of three marks to the answer.
11. Mr. Issac Mohanlal, learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the learned Single Judge is
right in directing to add three full marks in the given facts of the case as the
position in the diagram of Acrocentric Chromosome may vary as it is not static.
All that the candidate was asked to draw a diagram of that Acrocentric
Chromosome and thereafter indicate its parts. He has also produced a typed set
of papers, containing the diagrams of Acrocentric Chromosome in different
positions to show that it is not static. Hence, the learned counsel appearing
for the candidate would submit that the order of the learned Single Judge needs
no interference.
12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the
learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned
counsel appearing for the first respondent.
13. At the out set, we may point out that in academic matters,
particularly in valuation of question and answer, this Court should not venture
to consider as to whether the question and answer is correct or not and leave
the matter to the experts for their decision. This is basically on the principle
that finality must be attached to such question and answer and the Court is not
expert on the subject. Nevertheless, in the event, on the face, an answer given
to a question is acceptable to the Court as correct answer, without any further
opinion of the experts on the same, the grant of relief cannot be denied.
14. The Question No.19, which we have extracted in the earlier
portion of the Judgment, seeks the candidate first to draw the diagram of
“Acrocentric Chromosome” and thereafter to label its parts. The question
contains two parts. As far as the first part is concerned, it does not refer to
the position viz., whether the Acrocentric Chromosome would be vertically upward
or downward or horizontal. The opinion dated 05.07.2010 of the Professor, who is
the Head of the Department of Botany (Rtd), N.M.Christian College, Marthandam,
is that Acrocentric Chromosome of the nucleus of living cells will remain in any
position, The long arm may be vertically upward or it may be vertically downward
or the entire chromosome may be in horizontal position.(Page No.132 of the typed
set of papers filed by the candidate). Apart from the three books, which were
relied on by the learned counsel for the candidate before the learned Single
Judge, certain books by different authors were placed before us. We can see that
in Page Nos.71, 77, 93, 101, 112 and 127 of the Typed set of papers filed by the
learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, the position of Acrocentric
Chromosome is shown like the following:-
May be the authorized text book of BIOLOGY – Botany for the Higher Secondary –
Second Year shows a different position of Acrocentric Chromosome, which by
itself does not indicate that Acrocentric Chromosome is static and it cannot
change its position.
15. When a doubt was entertained, the re-valuation was referred to a
Committee, of course consisting of three Post Graduate Assistants of various
Government Higher Secondary Schools, they had given their opinion, which is as
follows:-
“Question No.19:-
According to the question paper, the question No.19, based on the
key and the text book given by the Education Department, the position of the
arms in Acrocentric Chromosome diagram drawn by the candidate is wrong and the
brief description is not necessary as per the key answers”.
16. We have gone through the same and in our considered opinion, the
same has been given by the Revaluation Committee as if the question was asked as
to the particular position of the arms of Acrocentric Chromosome. The said
opinion with reference to the position of the arms does not reflect in the
question paper, which we have extracted above. The candidates were expected to
draw the Acrocentric Chromosome, which has no definite position as it is a
living cell and it can move and can have a different position as could be seen
from the extract of the text books produced before us.
17. That apart, when a slight doubt is entertained about the
question and the question is not clear, the benefit could be given to the
candidate as denial of marks to such question and answer would certainly be not
justified.
18. Having regard to the above factual position, especially when no
further opinion is required, we do not find any reason or justification to
interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. It is true that the
Court, being not a expert in a subject cannot issue a positive direction.
Nevertheless there may be cases where such a direction can be issued when no
further opinion of the expert is required and denial of such relief would
seriously affect the candidate.
19. In that view of the matter, this Writ Appeal has no merits, and
accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Consequently, the connected M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010 is also dismissed.
Dpn/-