BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22/10/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.12996 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 S.Veluchamy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9. 2.The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Compound, College Road, Chennai 600 002. ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to award four mark to the petitioner's answer paper roll No.X08040154 for the question No.50,71,82 and 103 serial in History subject and give effect to the revised tentative provisional list published on 18.05.2010 and certificates verified on 05.06.2010 and without any reference to the provisional list published subsequently on 06.10.2010 and consequently select and appoint the petitioner as Block Resource Teacher Education (History) with all benefits. !For Petitioner ... Mr.Thirunavukkarasu ^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Spl.G.P. (takes notice) :ORDER
This is a frivolous litigation filed by the petitioner seeking for one
more evaluation of the answer paper written by him while writing examination for
selection and appointment to the post of Block Resource Teacher Education
(History).
2.It is the third attempt by a candidates who have written the selection
examination. When the first set of Writ petitions came, the respondent State
themselves agreed to re-value the papers and that was also permitted without
going into the merits of the case. Subsequently, again it was pointed out that
some question given were either dubious or erroneous. Therefore, another round
of valuation was also permitted by this Court. Not satisfied with that there
were serious of litigation both before the Principal Bench and the Madurai
Bench. In both Courts there were as many as 200 Writ petitions.
3.Mr.V.Ramasubramaniam,J., setting in Principal Bench in W.P.No.11120 of
2010 and batch cases, by a common judgment dated 17.08.2010 gave exhaustive
directions with reference to valuation of the answer papers. The entire issue
were gone into at the relevant time. Following the judgment passed by the
Principal Bench, batch of litigations pending before the Madurai Bench came to
be disposed of by a common order by Mr.R.S.Ramanathan,J., in W.P.(MD)No.4696 of
2010 and batch cases. The learned Judge followed the judgment of the Principal
Bench and disposed of the Writ petitions by giving similar directions. The
State did not go on appeal and the order has been implemented.
4.However, the petitioner has now come forward for the 4th time to contend
that the question No.50, 71, 82 and 103 in the History subject were not proper
and hence, the 2nd respondent must be directed to award 4 marks to the
petitioner’s answer paper. This Court is not inclined to entertain such a Writ
petition.
5.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue
raised in the present Writ petition is entirely different from the issue raised
in the earlier batch of litigation. This Court is not willing to entertain the
Writ petition on two grounds:
The first was that there have been several litigations in the very same
selection process and they have been concluded by an exhaustive order passed by
this Court. If at all any ground to be urged, it should have been raised at the
relevant time and litigations cannot be made on instalment basis.
6.It is needless to state that though 200 persons filed Writ petitions but
the direction given by this Court was on a representative basis. The Government
had also accepted the order passed by this Court and gave effect to the same.
In such circumstances, when a litigation is entertained on a representative
basis and if any party is aggrieved they ought to have moved this Court and must
have contended whatever the points that are available to them. They cannot wait
till the outcome of the litigation and thereafter raise a new grounds.
7.It is precisely for this purpose, Order II Rule 2 was incorporated in
the Civil Procedure Code. If any party has to raise such issues and did not
raise at in the suit, such issues are deemed to have been given up. The said
principles of C.P.C. are also applicable to the proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution. In view of the same, this Court do not propose to go into the
merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner.
8.Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
Writ petition and if done, it will open a Pandoras Box unsettling matters which
are already settled. Hence, the Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected M.P.is closed.
nbj
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Education Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai -9.
2.The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai,
DPI Compound, College Road,
Chennai 600 002.