w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



T.S. Abinesh & Another v/s The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus, Egmore, Chennai


Company & Directors' Information:- I SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2003PTC118851

Company & Directors' Information:- S T SERVICES LTD [Active] CIN = L74140WB1989PLC047210

Company & Directors' Information:- M G F SERVICES LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65910DL1987PLC029599

Company & Directors' Information:- R S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65100DL1989PTC038061

Company & Directors' Information:- R S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL1989PTC038061

Company & Directors' Information:- S J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL1988PTC034427

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP E - SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MN2013PTC008361

Company & Directors' Information:- E M SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93090MH2001PTC131924

Company & Directors' Information:- L M J SERVICES LTD [Active] CIN = L51226WB1983PLC035807

Company & Directors' Information:- L M J SERVICES LTD [Active] CIN = L93000WB1983PLC035807

Company & Directors' Information:- G K SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1994PTC078529

Company & Directors' Information:- A K SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899MH1986PTC268851

Company & Directors' Information:- B V SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1991PTC050946

Company & Directors' Information:- I S A SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140JH1995PTC006387

Company & Directors' Information:- E I C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1985PTC022426

Company & Directors' Information:- A C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC070774

Company & Directors' Information:- H S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900KA2014PTC074321

Company & Directors' Information:- G V INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2010PTC212026

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2007PTC168484

Company & Directors' Information:- J K BOARD PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U20101DL1998PTC094877

Company & Directors' Information:- O P T SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63013DL1996PTC083397

Company & Directors' Information:- P P SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1991PTC051423

Company & Directors' Information:- A P T SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U29219TG1999PTC031903

Company & Directors' Information:- S S SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109AS1993PTC003956

Company & Directors' Information:- G & G SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2012PTC230905

Company & Directors' Information:- A N Y SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC071457

Company & Directors' Information:- N B SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC056484

Company & Directors' Information:- P C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00894KA1985PTC006606

Company & Directors' Information:- M. V. S SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000DL2013PTC252172

Company & Directors' Information:- S D SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109AS1998PTC005293

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND B SERVICES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2004PTC145775

Company & Directors' Information:- C & R SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140KA1996PTC019645

Company & Directors' Information:- E AND A SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51900MH1989PTC054373

Company & Directors' Information:- A. H. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74990MH2009PTC193917

Company & Directors' Information:- M E R I T SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1999PTC118445

Company & Directors' Information:- P F P SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900MH2009PTC293633

Company & Directors' Information:- P F P SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2009PTC139742

Company & Directors' Information:- J. S. P. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63040DL1996PTC075731

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA SERVICES LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1946PLC000976

Company & Directors' Information:- U M S SERVICES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U03210TZ1982PLC001208

Company & Directors' Information:- SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL1996PTC078465

Company & Directors' Information:- G I SERVICES INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2008PLC184088

Company & Directors' Information:- E AND E SERVICES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65992KL1988PLC005094

Company & Directors' Information:- S R V N SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50200DL2004PTC124035

Company & Directors' Information:- B H SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2012FTC227035

Company & Directors' Information:- A R SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00000DL2001PTC109578

Company & Directors' Information:- J AND J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1995PTC092554

Company & Directors' Information:- L B D SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00359BR1991PTC004694

Company & Directors' Information:- M P SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999PN1999PTC013531

Company & Directors' Information:- B I N A R Y SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC103072

Company & Directors' Information:- M C SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999PN1999PTC013532

Company & Directors' Information:- D & D SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL1998PTC093967

Company & Directors' Information:- S C L SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63012TN2001PTC046650

Company & Directors' Information:- A B SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL1998PTC093545

Company & Directors' Information:- G P SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC037683

Company & Directors' Information:- T S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85320WB2003PTC095712

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND T SERVICES PRIVATE LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U72501DL1998PTC096640

Company & Directors' Information:- S S SERVICES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB1988PTC044009

Company & Directors' Information:- S S D SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74910RJ1996PTC012694

Company & Directors' Information:- V & V SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74990MH2010PTC206211

Company & Directors' Information:- D S SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65923MH2012PTC226482

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND I SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090MH1981PTC024997

Company & Directors' Information:- F F C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2014PTC153348

Company & Directors' Information:- R. B. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2017PTC302692

Company & Directors' Information:- Q C SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PN2013PTC148110

Company & Directors' Information:- S N SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900JK2014PTC004110

Company & Directors' Information:- R N SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900CH2013PTC034757

Company & Directors' Information:- A Y SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2012PTC239759

Company & Directors' Information:- V. S. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2012PTC233958

Company & Directors' Information:- S & V SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2015PTC287145

Company & Directors' Information:- R. D. CAMPUS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2017PTC326936

Company & Directors' Information:- A R J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2015PTC286948

Company & Directors' Information:- M K R SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000DL2012PTC242159

Company & Directors' Information:- G W SERVICES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U79140DL2001PTC111194

Company & Directors' Information:- B 2 B SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140HR2013PTC049213

Company & Directors' Information:- R K SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200HR2007PTC041783

Company & Directors' Information:- A. R. T. SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900GJ2009PTC056248

Company & Directors' Information:- B 9 N SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900KL2012PTC032087

Company & Directors' Information:- V J SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29242GJ2013PTC074510

Company & Directors' Information:- N I SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64202KL2000PTC014355

Company & Directors' Information:- F I SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2001PTC113001

Company & Directors' Information:- C R D SERVICES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U72300AS1988PTC003097

Company & Directors' Information:- B I M SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140KA1974PTC002694

Company & Directors' Information:- T Q M SERVICES PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL1999PTC101341

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND M SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140MH1977PTC019880

Company & Directors' Information:- M J B E-SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U72400DL2006PTC150832

    W.P.(MD)Nos. 7197 & 8496 of 2020 & W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 6627 & 7881 of 2020

    Decided On, 26 August 2020

    At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR

    For the Petitioners: S. Louis, Advocate. For the Respondent: K. Chellapandian, Additional Advocate General, Assisted by Mu.Muthu, Additional Government Pleader.



Judgment Text


(Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.7197 of 2020 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the final key answer to Question No.47 in the Written Examination Question Booklet A Series for direct recruitment for the posts Sub Inspector of Police {Taluk, Armed Reserve (Men & Women/ Transgender) and Tamil Nadu Special Police(Men)-2019} as wrong and consequently to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the next phase of selection by awarding marks for the petitioner's answer to the question No.47 within the time stipulated by this Court.

Prayer in W.P.(MD) No.8496 of 2020 : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Declaration, declaring the final key answer to Question No.33 in the Written Examination Question Booklet B Series for direct recruitment for the posts Sub Inspector of Police {Taluk, Armed Reserve (Men & Women/ Transgender) and Tamil Nadu Special Police(Men)-2019} as wrong and consequently to direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the next phase of selection by awarding marks for the petitioner's answer to the question No.33 within the time stipulated by this Court. In both cases:)

Common Order:

The prayer sought for in these writ petitions are for a Writ of Declaration, to declare the final key answer to Question Nos.47 & 33 in the Written Examination Question Booklet A & B Series, respectively, for direct recruitment to the posts of Sub Inspector of Police {Taluk, Armed Reserve (Men & Women/ Transgender) and Tamil Nadu Special Police(Men)-2019} as wrong and consequently to direct the respondent to permit the petitioners to participate in the next phase of selection by awarding marks for the petitioner's answer to the question Nos.47 & 33 respectively.

2. The necessary facts which are required to be noticed for the disposal of these writ petitions are as follows:-

(i) The respondent Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board has issued a notification in No.2/2019, dated 08.03.2019, calling for online applications for direct recruitment for the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police {Taluk, Armed Reserve (Men & Women/ Transgender) and Tamil Nadu Special Police(Men)-2019}.

(ii) In respect of W.P.(MD) No.7197 of 2020, the petitioner being one of the candidates, as he applied for the same and his enrollment number was No.3210215. The petitioner was given Hall Ticket to write the written examination, which was held on 12.01.2020. In the written examination, which is an objective type examination, the question booklet bearing 'A' series was given to him. The petitioner claimed to have performed well and he was hopeful to get selection to the next phase of selection process.

(iii) Thereafter, the preliminary key answer was published. As per the said key answer, he calculated his own answers and was hopeful of getting 48.5 marks out of the total of 70 marks in the written examination. While so, in the month of March, the final key answer was published, in which, the answer for question No.47 was changed and thereafter, the results of the written examination were also published and the petitioner had secured 48 marks. In this context, those who secured 48.5 marks in the B.C.quota or category were selected for the next phase of selection. In other words, the cut off marks in the written examination for next phase of selection for the BC (Backward Class) category was fixed as 48.5 marks, whereas, the petitioner got only 48 marks.

(iv) It is in this context, the case of the petitioner is that, the key answer originally given insofar as Question No.47 is concerned, was “A”. However, subsequently, the answer for Question No.47 has been shown in the final key answer as “B”. According to the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.7197 of 2020 is concerned, the fact remains that, the correct answer is only 'A', which he has written and therefore, he is entitled to get marks for the said question No.47 and if that mark is awarded correctly to the petitioner, he would have earned 48.5 marks under the B.C. Category, by which, he would have come under the zone of consideration for the selection to the next phase of selection process.

3. Aggrieved over such wrong key answer given by the respondent Recruitment Board for the said question No.47, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a Writ of Declaration, to declare the key answer given by the respondent for the Question No.47 as wrong and consequently seeks for a direction to the respondent to award marks for the said question No.47, which, according to the petitioner, was correctly written by him.

4. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.8496 of 2020 is that, his case is also having the similar facts where except one change, that the petitioner, with enrollment No.2511208, was given the question booklet bearing 'B' series, where the relevant question was No.33, and all other facts are similar, that means, this petitioner also participated in the written examination and he has done well and he had also secured 48 marks. Similarly, he also belongs to B.C. category, where, he had written correct answer to question No.33, which is nothing but the same or replica of Q.No.47 of other series (i.e.) 'A' series answer booklet and here also, for question No.33, since the petitioner claimed to have written the correct answer, full mark (i.e.) 0.5 mark, if added, he would get 48.50 marks and could have come under the zone of consideration for the next phase of selection under B.C. quota. Therefore, this writ petitioner has also approached this Court with a similar prayer.

5. Since in both the writ petitions, the issue involved is one and the same, these two writ petitions, at the consent of both sides, are taken together and are being disposed of by this common order.

6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in the written examination, being an objective type, there are 140 questions asked and four possible answers are given in respect of each question by denoting the answers as (A), (B) , (C) and (D) and if correct answer is written, it will carry 0.5 mark, that means, for the total of 140 questions, the exam would carry 70 marks (i.e) 0.5 mark for each question (0.5 x 140 = 70). Accordingly, the answer scripts of both the petitioners were corrected and the respondent Recruitment Board awarded 48 marks for both candidates, out of 70 marks. However, the fact remains that, the cut off mark for B.C. category to which these petitioners belong was 48.5 marks out of 70 marks. In other words, those who have got 48.5 marks and above, out of the total of 70 marks, alone were considered for selection to the next phase of selection process by the respondent Recruitment Board.

7. The relevant question, which is in controversy in W.P.(MD) No.7197 of 2020 (i.e.) Question booklet 'A' series, is question No.47, whereas in W.P.(MD) No.8496 of 2020 is concerned, it is “B” series question booklet, where the corresponding question is No.33.

8. In order to appreciate the exact question in controversy, in both the question booklets 'A' series as well as 'B' series, where the questions are found in Serial Nos.47 and 33 respectively, the questions and the possible four answers are extracted hereunder:-

“47. Indian rupee was devalued _______ times since 1947.

(A) 3 (B) 4 (C) 2 (D) 1

“TAMIL”

(A) 3 (B) 4 (C) 2 (D) 1

***

33. Indian rupee was devalued _______ times since 1947.

(A) 3 (B) 4 (C) 2 (D) 1

“TAMIL”

(A) 3 (B) 4 (C) 2 (D) 1”

9. Therefore, the question asked was, how many times the Indian Rupee was devalued since 1947. In the original key answer or preliminary key answer published by the respondent Recruitment Board, the answer “A” that means, “three times”, was declared to be the correct answer, whereas, subsequently, when the final key answer was given, it was mentioned that “B” was the correct answer, that means, “four times”, the Indian Rupee was devalued.

10. In this context, it is the case of the petitioners as projected by Mr.S.Louis, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the correct answer is only “three times” and not “four times” and that was correctly given in the preliminary key answer, whereas, in the final key answer, that has been wrongly given, based on the expert opinion, it seems. Therefore, since wrong answer was declared in the final key answer, based on which, marks were awarded and in this case, both the petitioners were not awarded marks for the concerned question, they were constrained to challenge the same.

11. In order to substantiate the said contention on the side of the petitioners, the text book on Economics pertaining to the said question, namely, 'Devaluation' has been referred to and the relevant part has been filed in the typed set of papers by the petitioners, which reads thus:-

“2. Devaluation

Devaluation means deliberate reduction of the official rate at which domestic currency is exchanged for another currency. In other words, devaluation refers to a reduction in the external value of a currency in the terms of other currencies. For instance, instead of 70 Rs per US$, making 80 per US$.

Devaluation of Indian Currency

Indian rupee was devalued three times since 1947

1.On 29th September, 1949

2. On 6th June, 1966

3. On 1st July, 1991

A country with fundamental disequilibrium in the balance of payments may devalue its currency in order to stimulate its exports and discourage imports to correct the disequilibrium. Devaluation makes exports cheaper and imports dearer. That means making Indian good cheaper for foreigners, and foreign goods costlier for Indians.”

12. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that, the correct key answer to be taken into account and accordingly, the wrong key answer given by the respondent Recruitment Board shall be declared as wrong or invalid, and consequently, the mark to be awarded to the petitioners for the correct answer written by them for the said question in Sl.No.47 in respect of writ petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.7197 of 2020 and Sl.No.33 in respect of writ petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.8496 of 2020 shall be asked to be given.

13. When this controversy arose, based on the prima facie case projected by the petitioners' side, this Court, in the earlier occasion directed Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.Mu.Muthu, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Recruitment Board to produce the written expert opinion, to verify whether the answer 'A' or 'B' is correct, that means, the Devaluation of the Indian currency was done since 1947 “three times” or “four times”.

14. Pursuant to the said direction issued by this Court, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent Recruitment Board has produced the expert opinion in this regard, in a sealed cover, along with the supporting text from the subject Economics.

15. I have perused the said opinion given by the experts, dated 31.01.2020, based on which only, probably the final key answer was published by the respondent Recruitment Board. In order to appreciate the same, the expert opinion, dated 31.01.2020 on the disputed question Nos.47 and 33 respectively is extracted hereunder:-

SUB-INSPECTORS OF POLICE – 2019

Expert Opinion on Disputed Question

OPEN

Dated : 31.01.2020

Subject: Economics

Question booklet Series: A

Question No.47

Question:

47. Indian rupee was devalued _______ times since 1947.

(A) 3 (B) 4 (C) 2 (D) 1

“TAMIL”

(A) 3 (B) 4 (C) 2 (D) 1

Preliminary Answer Key: A

English Version: (A) 3

Tamil Version: (A) 3

Final Opinion:

We collectively gone through all the dispute petitions and came to the conclusion. The disputed question number is 47.

Question:

47. Indian rupee was devalued _______ times since 1947.

Answer:

English Version: (B) 4

Tamil Version: (B) 4

Source: (i) XII Std Economics Edition 2019

Page No.165, 142 in T.M.

(ii) Page No.119, 140 in E.M.

We all collectively concluded that the above answer is (B) 4.

Signed by:

1) Mrs.S.Rajalakshmi

P.G.Assistant,

S.M.D.P.V.C.H.S.S,

11 Rotter's Street,

Choolai, Chennai 600 112

Phone 9940382356

2) Mrs.K.Kannammal

P.G.Assistant,

The Hindu Theologinal Hr.Sec. School,

Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 079

Phone 9444077046

3) Mrs.V.Umamaheswari,

P.G.Assistant Economics,

Jaigopal Garodia Government Girls Hr.Sec. School,

Choolaimedu, Chennai 600 094

Phone 944428462

16. In order to arrive at the said conclusion that, only the answer 'B' was correct that means, the Indian currency was devalued since 1947 for 'four times' was the correct answer, according to the experts, in support of the same, they relied the text both in English and Tamil, which is none other than the text relied by the petitioners.

17. In order to appreciate the relevant portion of the text very much relied by the expert team, the same is extracted hereunder:

“2. Devaluation

Devaluation means deliberate reduction of the official rate at which domestic currency is exchanged for another currency. In other words, devaluation refers to a reduction in the external value of a currency in the terms of other currencies. For instance, instead of 70 Rs per US$, making 80 per US$.

Devaluation of Indian Currency

Indian rupee was devalued three times since 1947

1.On 29th September, 1949

2. On 6th June, 1966

3. On 1st July, 1991

A country with fundamental disequilibrium in the balance of payments may devalue its currency in order to stimulate its exports and discourage imports to correct the disequilibrium. Devaluation makes exports cheaper and imports dearer. That means making Indian good cheaper for foreigners, and foreign goods costlier for Indians.”

***

“TAMIL”

18. By relying upon this expert committee report, the learned Additional Advocate General very fairly submitted that, the experts, apart from the three times devaluation of the Indian currency, stated in the text as extracted above, also taken into account the Demonetization done by the Indian Government, recently in the year 2016. By thus, the expert Committee would have come to a conclusion that, the Indian currency has been devalued already three times and recently in the year 2016, fourth time. Accordingly, the said opinion might have been given by the experts, the learned Additional Advocate General contended.

19. I have considered the said case projected by the petitioners through the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the reply given by the learned Additional Advocate General and also the opinion given by the expert team with supporting documents.

20. The question asked was, Indian rupee was devalued ___ times, since 1947 (i.e.) how many times Indian rupees was devalued since 1947. In Tamil, “TAMIL”

21. The word 'Devaluation' is nothing but “TAMIL”, like that, the word 'Demonetization' means “TAMIL”. There is a lot of difference between “Devaluation of currency” and “Demonetization of currency”. According to the text relied by the expert Team as well as the petitioners, the word 'Devaluation' has been explained to state that, it is a deliberate reduction of the official rate at which domestic currency is exchanged for another currency, for instance, instead of Rs.70/- per one USD making it as Rs.80/- per One USD. This kind of devaluation process is totally different from demonetization process, which has also been explained in the text to state that demonetization is the act of stripping a currency unit of its status as legal tender. To have a better understanding of the term 'Demonetization process', the explanation given in the text, which has been relied upon by both sides under the caption 'Demonetization' is extracted hereunder:

“Demonetisation

Demonetisation is the act of stripping a currency unit of its status as legal tender. It occurs whenever there is a change of national currency. The current form or forms of money pulled from circulation, often to be replaced with new coins or notes. On 8 November 2016, the Indian Prime Minister Mr.Narendra Modi announced the demonetization of all Rs.500 and Rs.1000 bank notes of the Mahatma Gandhi Series. However, more than 99% of those currencies came back to the RBI.

6.14.1. Objectives of Demonetisation

1. Removing Black Money from the country.

2. Stopping of Corruption.

3. Stopping Terror Funds.

4. Curbing Fake Notes. ”

22. This process of demonetization, which is nothing but an act of stripping a currency unit of its status as legal tender, done on November 8th 2016 by the Indian Government, has also been taken as one of the devaluation of Indian currency, by the experts. It is unfortunate to note that, the experts, who are working as Post Graduate Teachers at various Schools in Chennai, who are expected to teach the students of Higher Secondary school in the subject Economics, having formed the Committee of experts, has given such an opinion as if, that the Demonetization done by the Indian Government on November 8th 2016 is also one of the Devaluation of Indian currency.

23. However, the fact remains that, the Indian currency since 1947, has been devalued only three times (i.e.) on 29th September, 1949, 6th June, 1966 and 1st July, 1991 (three times). Thereafter, according to the text referred to by both sides, there has been no devaluation of Indian currency.

24. The preliminary key answer released by the respondent Recruitment Board has made only the correct answer for the said question Nos.33 & 47 as 'A' (i.e.) “three times”, Indian rupee has been devalued. However, in the final key answer, which probably, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, was issued, pursuant to the expert opinion given in this regard, has stated that, the answer for the said question is 'B' (i.e.) “four times”, which means the Indian Rupee has been devalued four times since 1947.

25. Because of the wrong expert opinion given by the expert Team, as has been discussed above, the respondent Recruitment Board had issued the final key answer with the wrong answer for the particular question, thereby those candidates who have written the right answer have been denied marks and those who have written the wrong answer would have been given marks.

26. This mistake, though appears to be a smaller one, which will have a wider ramification and it would create a cascading effect in the selection process. The reason being that, those who have written the wrong answer, would have got marks for that particular question and by virtue of that, they would have reached the zone of consideration and selected for the next phase of selection and ultimately if they are selected for the post of Sub Inspector of Police, certainly their selection might found to be not strictly based on merits. Like that, those candidates, like the petitioners, who have written the correct answer for the particular question, despite the same, if they have not been awarded marks because of the expert opinion, those candidates like the petitioners, would have missed their chance of getting into the zone of selection, thereby, some of the candidates like the petitioners, would have lost their chance of coming under the zone of consideration and some of the candidates, who might have got higher marks, despite their wrong answer, would have reached the zone of consideration.

27. If we put these two group of people in a juxt-a-position, it would become quite clear that, some undeserving or less meritorious candidates might have reached the zone of selection and some meritorious and unfortunate candidates, like the petitioners, would have been left the consideration to the next phase of selection, as they could not have reached the zone of selection, because of the lack of 0.5 mark.

28. Be that as it may, before this Court, now only two petitioners have come and they have filed these writ petitions, raising the issue and they have successfully demonstrated the answer for the particular question Nos.47 and 33 as right, despite the same, they have not been awarded with marks. Moreover, both the writ petitioners belong to B.C. community and admittedly, the cut off mark in the written examination out of a total of 70 marks was 48.5 marks for B.C. candidates and both the petitioners have obtained 48 marks. Therefore, if 0.5 mark is given for the particular question, which is now in controversy, for the correct answer written, certainly they would get 48.5 marks totally, out of 70 marks. Resultantly, they would reach the zone of selection for the next phase of selection process in the B.C. Category. Such ramification and civil consequences are effected, because of the wrong committed by the expert Team in suggesting the answer to the respondent Recruitment Board.

29. In this regard, neither those who are in the helm of affairs in the Recruitment Board nor this Court are expected to be experts in a particular field, here, it is the field of Economics. That is the reason why, the respondent Board depends on the experts in a particular subject and after having referred to the experts for getting their opinion, the final key answer has been issued by the respondent Recruitment Board. Therefore, in this context, against the respondent Board, no blame can be put in to be, at the same time, the respondent Board should have been very cautious in selecting the experts to be included in the Committee, to give expert opinion on the key answer.

30. The three Post Graduate teachers, in the field of Economics, working in various Schools, having referred the text on the particular subject, since has given a wrong answer or wrong opinion, as a result of which, this kind of confusion has beencreated, this Court expresses its displeasure the way in which the experts acted recklessly.

31. Be that as it may, now, it has been demonstrated beyond doubts that, the final key answer given by the Recruitment Board, of course, based upon the expert opinion for the questions namely, question no.47 in booklet series 'A' and question No.33 in booklet series 'B', are wrong. The correct answer is “three times”, “the devaluation of the Indian currency has been done by the Government since 1947”, and if that being so, since both the petitioners have written the correct answer, they are entitled to be awarded with full marks (i.e.) 0.5 mark for the said question. If such 0.5 mark is added to the already obtained mark of 48 in the written examination for the petitioners, that would get around to 48.5 marks, totally out of 70 marks. As already discussed, the cut off marks for the zone of consideration of B.C. category is 48.5 marks and since both the petitioners would be entitled for 48.5 marks, certainly they should also be considered in the zone of consideration, accordingly, the petitioners would come in the next phase of selection.

32. In this context, the learned Additional Advocate General has expressed one difficulty that, if more number of candidates, like the petitioners, who have written the correct answer for the particular question were not awarded marks and if such mark is awarded, they would be in a position to come into the zone of consideration in the respective communal category, then, the whole process would have to be redone, which may not be possible at this juncture.

33. This Court is not impressed with the pre-emptive submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General at this juncture, because, the Court considers only these two writ petitioners, who have come to this Court and they are eligible and entitled to get marks for the correct answer written for the particular question.

34. Insofar as the f

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

uture is concerned, this Court cannot express its opinion in these writ petitions, except to say that, we will cross the bridge when it comes. 35. In the result, in view of the aforesaid discussions and factual matrix of the case, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders in these writ petitions:- (a) the final key answer published by the respondent Recruitment Board for Question Nos.47 and 33 respectively for 'A' and 'B' answer booklet series, for the written examination for the selection process to the direct recruitment to the posts of Sub Inspector of Police {Taluk, Armed Reserve (Men & Women/ Transgender) and Tamil Nadu Special Police(Men)-2019} by notification No.2 of 2019 dated 08.03.2019 are declared to be wrong or invalid; (b) As a sequel, since the petitioners have written correct answers for the said question nos.47 and 33 respectively, they are entitled to get marks (i.e.) 0.5 mark for the said question. Therefore, the said 0.5 mark shall be awarded to the petitioners; (c) Since the petitioners were already awarded 48 marks out of a total of 70 marks and the zone of consideration for the next stage of selection under B.C. category is 48.5 marks, these petitioners would get 48.5 marks if 0.5 mark is added, as indicated above and certainly, they would also come under the zone of selection. Accordingly, their candidatures shall be selected under the B.C. category for the next stage of selection; and (d) After undertaking to carry out the aforesaid exercise within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the respondent Recruitment Board shall do the next follow up action insofar as the candidatures of both the writ petitioners are concerned. 36. Before parting with the case, this Court wants to give a note of caution to the respondent Recruitment Board that, hereafter they must be so cautious and take all vigil to get an expert opinion in any subject matter and in this regard, if one expert opinion is obtained from a Committee consisting of experts, a second expert opinion can also be obtained, if so advisable, in order to avoid controversy. This Court expresses its displeasure, where, in an expert team, consisting of three Teachers, working in the field of Economics, have given wrong advice to the respondent Recruitment Board and this Court is wondering that, those experts are not in a position to differentiate the two aspects of Economics - Devaluation and Demonetization of currency. 37. With these directions and observations, these writ petitions are ordered to the terms indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
O R