SELVAJOTHI RANJITHAM S P Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; SECRETARY SELECTION COMMITTEE DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Dr.Selvajothi Ranjitham S.P, W/o Dr.S.Jeyasuthan seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of Clause 39 of the prospectus issued by the second respondent for admission to the MDS course for the academic year 2012-13 with a further direction to the respondents to award marks in respect of question Nos.20,28,33,38,39,41,50,51,59,74,84,90,92,99,114,120,160,165,191,199,224, 231,236,242 and 246 bearing registration No.90561 of the MDS entrance examination for the academic year 2012-13 conducted on 04.03.2012 and revise the marks into 70.40 and place the petitioner between the rank 10 and 11 and re-allot one MDS seat to the petitioner in the Tamil Nadu Dental College, Chennai.

(2.) The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Surgeon (Dental) in the Government Hospital, Manamadurai, Sivagangai District, had applied for the entrance examination to get admission in the MDS course for the academic year 2012-13. After she was issued with the Registration No.90561, she attended the entrance examination conducted on 4.3.2012 at Chennai. Since the examination was based on objective type questions and answers, she had to choose the correct answer out of the four options for each question and tick the appropriate box. 90 marks are allotted for the entrance examination and 10 marks for service weightage. The petitioner, after seeing the question paper, found some of the answers defective, since all the four answers given for several questions were incorrect. It was also the claim of the petitioner, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that for some of the questions more than one answer was correct. However, the petitioner attended 248 questions out of 250. Thereafter, the respondents published the result in the website on 6.3.2012 showing that the petitioner had secured 59.76 marks out of 90 marks. After adding the service weightage of 4 marks, she secured a total of 63.76 marks. The petitioner being a BC candidate was ranked 65. However, after the petitioner's mark was declared, knowing pretty well that some of the questions were given incorrect answers, she applied for the supply of question paper, key answer and also the answer script. But, the same was refused by the respondents, relying upon clause 35 of the prospectus issued for admission to the MDS course for the academic year 2012-13. In view of the refusal of the respondents to furnish the question paper, key answer and answer script, she came to this Court by filing W.P.No.7041 of 2012 challenging the validity of clause 35 of the prospectus with a further prayer to furnish the question paper, key answer and answer script. It was further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that her writ petition was allowed partly on 17.4.2012 giving a direction to the respondents to furnish her answer script alone. Aggrieved by the said order partly refusing the other prayer, the petitioner moved Writ Appeal No.944 of 2012 and the Division Bench, by order dated 19.7.2012, remitted the matter, since the challenge to clause 35 of the prospectus was not gone into. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was called for counselling on 29.5.2012 for the MDS admission. The petitioner took Oral Pathology under Government quota in the private Ragas Dental College and now she has successfully passed her first year. Thereafter, the petitioner's writ petition was allowed in the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, 2011 8 SCC 497, wherein it is held that after the publication of the result of all the examination including entrance examination, a candidate is entitled to have all the documents, therefore, a direction was issued to furnish the question paper, key answer and answer script. Complaining that the direction was not complied with, the petitioner came to this Court by filing a contempt petition and finally, the petitioner was furnished with the question paper, key answer and also the answer script. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner verified the question paper with the key answers together with her answer script. In the said process the petitioner found that she had correctly answered 166 questions. Since each answer carried 0.36 marks, after verification, it was found that 22 questions required re-scrutiny which are found to be wrong. During the pendency of the writ petition, M.P.No.2 of 2013 was moved for amending the prayer to include 3 more questions in the prayer in addition to the 22 questions and to award marks for the same. This Court, by order dated 28.1.2013, ordered the petition and that is how the prayer has been amended for re-scrutiny of 25 questions. Therefore, the petitioner has once again come to this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking to quash clause 39 of the prospectus issued by the second respondent for admission to MDS course for the academic year 2012-13 with a further direction to the respondents to revise the marks into 70.40 and place the petitioner between the rank 10 and 11 and re-allot one MDS seat to the petitioner in the Tamil Nadu Dental College, Chennai.

(3.) In the meanwhile, based on the order of this Court dated 28.3.2013 to verify the correctness of the answers given by the petitioner in respect of 25 questions, the first Committee submitted its report dated 10.4.2013 stating that the answers given by the petitioner for question Nos.38, 59, 74, 242, 191 and 224 were correct. Subsequently, after hearing both sides, since a specific dispute was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the correctness of the key answers given by the petitioner for nine questions based on the answers given in the text books, namely, Q.Nos.28, 39, 41, 114, 199, 231, 84, 33 and 246, this Court, by order dated 18.2.2014, again directed a Committee of three members to evaluate the nine questions on merits and thereupon to submit a report before this Court. On the basis of the said direction, a report had also been submitted by the second Committee on 14.3.2014 in respect of the above nine questions. A perusal of the report dated 14.3.2014 shows that the petitioner has given the correct answer for question No.28, since all the four options are correct. In respect of question No.39, the Committee has stated that the said question has not been properly structured. Similarly, in respect of question No.199, although the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has given the appropriate answer, but, according to the respondents, she should have given the most appropriate answer by reading thoroughly all the options.