UDAYA ELANGOVAN MINOR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is minor Udaya Elangovan represented by her mother and seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the petitioner's mark-sheet in the Entrance Examination of Tamil Nadu Professional Courses conducted in May, 1998.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that the belongs to the Backward Community and has throughout been a very bright student of Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School and that she had secured 88.5% marks in the aggregate in the Tenth Standard Examination. She also appeared in the Plus Two Examination, but she did not secure marks up to her expectation. The petitioner thereafter appeared in the Entrance Examination which is conducted for the Professional Courses, but she did not get the marks up to her expectations. The petitioner points out that the results in the Entrance Examination were shocking and she has quoted a number of examples suggesting that there were number of irregularities inasmuch as the students who expected very high marks did not get the expected marks. A report in a Daily called "Dina Malar" dated 6-6-1998 is also relied upon suggesting that there were gross violations during the valuation of the answer papers of the Plus Two Examination. It is, therefore, suggested that therefore there were irregularities in the Plus Two Examination also. The Entrance Examination conducted by the University cannot remain foolproof. In support of this contention, it is pointed out that while entering the marks into the computer, it is not unusual to award marks to the wrong persons. It is suggested further that the papers of the candidate belonging to the number preceding her, being 4532981, should also be subjected to scrutiny and comparison. It is suggested that the conduct of Entrance Examination itself is fraught with imperfections and the students should be given the question papers so as to enable them to make a personal evaluation and place the question and answer before the Court. It is in this light that the petitioner has come before the Court. A notice was sent to both the respondents.

(3.) The contention raised by the Counsel for the second respondent is that there was absolutely no scope whatsoever for any irregularity either in valuation or in supplying the marks to the computer. The learned Counsel has placed on record the Prospectus and the Rules for Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Entrance Examinations which task has been assigned to the Anna University. According to the learned Counsel, the Examination has been conducted in a very proper manner without there being any irregularity about it. Affidavits have been sworn on behalf of the second respondent by the Registrar of the University refuting all the allegations of irregularities and mal-practices. During the pendency of this Petition, an additional affidavit came to be filed by the mother of the petitioner that in another matter, wherein the petitioner had prayed for revaluation of the answer papers relating to Plus Two Examination, a Division Bench of this Court was pleased to call for the papers and allow the scrutiny of the same by the Counsel and the petitioner and also granted the addition of the marks found to have been omitted.