IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 10-07-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.12570 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 K.Perumal .. Petitioner. Versus 1.Joint Director (Valuation) Directorate of Government Examinations Chennai-6. 2.Secretary Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions 2009, Anna University, Chennai-25. 3.Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Chennai. .. Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in RC No.023997/RV/09, dated 1.7.2009 and quash the same and further direct the first respondent to award 3 marks to answer No.38, as against zero and 10 marks to Answer No.69 as against 8, totalling 194 marks as against 189 in the Physics paper for the petitioners daughter P.Vinotha, Register No.651149 appeared in Higher Secondary Examination, conducted in March, 2009. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Arumugam For Respondents : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy (R1 & R3) Government Advocate Mr.Mani Sundar Gopal (R2) O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has stated that his daughter, P.Vinotha, had appeared for the Higher Secondary examinations conducted by the first respondent in the month of March, 2009, with Register No.651149. After valuation of the answer books the results had been declared and the petitioner’s daughter had scored 1150 out of 1200. In the mark sheet issued by the first respondent, the particulars of the marks obtained by P.Vinotha had been shown as follows
Theory
Prac
Sanskrit
198
English
175
Physics
139
050
189
Chemistry
144
050
194
Comp.Science
144
050
194
Maths
200
Total
1150
3. It has been further stated that even though the petitioner’s daughter, P.Vinotha, was expecting 194 marks in the physics paper, she was awarded only 189 marks. Therefore, the petitioner had applied for a copy of the answer book of the physics examination. A xerox copy of the answer book had been given to the petitioner. On consultation with some of the experienced teachers in the subject the petitioner had come to know that his daughter should have got 3 marks for the answer to Question No.38, instead of the zero marks awarded to her. Further, he had been informed that his daughter should have got 10 marks for the answer for Question No.69, instead of the 8 marks which had been awarded to her. In such circumstances, the petitioner had applied for the revaluation of the answer book of his daughter, after payment of the requisite fee. By a memorandum in Rc.No.023997/RV/09, dated 1.7.2009, received by the petitioner, on 6.7.2009, the first respondent had intimated that there was no change in the marks already awarded in the physics paper.
4. It has been further stated that P.Vinotha had given the correct answer for the Question No.38, in which she had stated Flemings Right Hand Rule, as per the text book. Even if there was some difference in the answer she should have been given full marks for it, as it had been stated, in the instructions issued by the Directorate of Government examinations, Chennai, along with the key answers for the physics paper, that for the answers in Part-II, III and IV, like reasoning, explaining, narrating, describing and listing the points, students may right in their own words without changing the concepts and without skipping any points. Since Question No.38 is found in Part -II of the question paper in the physics paper it would have been sufficient for the candidate to use her own words in certain places, while answering the said question. However, no marks had been awarded to the candidate for her answer to the said question, even though she had given the correct answer. With regard to the Question No.69, it has been stated that though the candidate had written the concept correctly without changing the meaning, instead of awarding full marks, two marks had been reduced for the said answer. It had also been submitted that the candidate had not been awarded the correct marks for the answer to Question No.51, even though she had written the answer correctly.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted, based on the instructions received by her from the respondents, that the candidate had not written the correct answer for Question No.38. It has been stated that instead of stating Flemings Right Hand Rule, the candidate had stated Flemmings Left Hand rule.
6. The learned counsel had pointed out the difference by placing before this Court the following tabulation:
STATEMENT AS PER TEXT BOOK
WRITTEN BY THE STUDENT
OMISSION IN THE STATEMENT
The forefinger, the middle finger and the thumb of the right hand are held in the three mutually perpendicular directions. If the forefinger points along the direction of the magnetic field and the thumb is along the direction of motion of conductor, then the middle finger points in the direction of inducted current. This rule is also called Generator rule.
The fore finger, middle finger and thumb finger of the right hand is stretched perpendicular to each other, if the fore finger shows the direction of magnetic field and thumb finger shows the direction of force on the conductor, the middle finger will show the direction of induced current in it. This Rule is also called as Generator rule.
Mutually is not written
the thumb finger shows direction of motion
The statement of the rule was not written as in the text book
It was further explained stating that as per Flemming’s Right hand rule, the thumb is along the direction of motion of the conductor, but it should not be force on the conductor. In Flemming’s Left hand rule only the thumb points in the direction of the force on the conductor.
7. With regard to Question No.51, the learned counsel, while explaining the reason for the rejection of the marks for the said answer, had placed before this Court the following tabulation:
Sl.No
Key Answer
Marks Allotted
Marks Awarded
1.
Electric Potential-Definition
1
1
2.
Diagram & Explanation
1
1
3.
Dv= -Edx
1
1
4.
E= q
1
-----
5.
V = - q . dx =
1
1
8. With regard to Question No.69, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted the following tabulation:
Sl.No
Key Answer
Marks Allotted
Marks Awarded
1.
Definition
2
2
2.
Diagram
2
2
3.
Explanation
1
—-
4.
A- V / V 1 1 5. V = V = 1 1 6. A = V / V = 1 1 7. For negative feedback the feedback fraction is - 1 1 8. A = 1 1
9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is constrained to hold that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for in the writ petition. It is clearly demonstrated that the candidate had been awarded the correct marks for the answers she had given for the Question Nos.38, 69 and 51, in the Physics paper of the Higher Secondary school examinations, held in the month of March, 2009. On verification it had been found that no serious discrepancies are found warranting re-valuation of the answers written by the candidate for the said questions. In such circumstances, no directions can be issued to the respondents, as prayed for by the petitioner, to award higher marks for the answers given by the petitioner for the Question Nos.38, 69 and 51. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. As the writ petition is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
csh
To
1.Joint Director (Valuation)
Directorate of Government Examinations
Chennai-6.
2.Secretary
Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions 2009,
Anna University, Chennai-25.
3. The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu
Education Department,
Chennai