Judgment :- 1. The petitioners have come up with these writ petitions challenging the results of the written examination conducted for direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service. 2. I have heard Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board issued a notification in Advertisement No.110 on 01.4.2010 for direct recruitment to 1095 posts of Sub Inspector of Police (767 men and 328 women), both from the open market and also from among eligible departmental candidates towards the 20% quota reserved for them. The petitioner in the first writ petition is a Police Constable already in service and he applied under the quota reserved for departmental candidates. The petitioner in the other writ petition is a candidate who applied from the open market. 4. On 03.7.2010 and 04.7.2010, the main written examinations for departmental candidates and candidates from the open market were held respectively. On 30.7.2010, the provisional list of selected candidates was released by the recruitment Board. Finding that their names did not find a place in the provisional list, the petitioners have come up with these writ petitions challenging the results declared, on various grounds. 5. The results of the written examination are assailed by the petitioners, primarily on three grounds, viz. (i)that many questions and/or the key answers to many questions have now turned out to be wrong, making the entire process of selection vitiated; (ii) that there was mass copying in a few centres, making the whole process a mockery; and (iii)that the pattern of the question papers was not in accordance with the syllabus originally advertised. FIRST GROUND OF ATTACK 6.1. The first contention of the petitioners is that the total number of questions contained in the question paper for departmental candidates was 170. All of them were of objective type with each question containing 4 options, out of which, the candidates were required to choose one. The "final key answers" released by the Recruitment Board showed two things viz., (i) that all of the four options given in respect of at least six questions were found to be wrong; and (ii) that in respect of seven questions, two out of four options were found by the Board to be correct. 6.2. The "final key answers" released by the Recruitment Board showed two things viz., (i) that all of the four options given in respect of at least six questions were found to be wrong; and (ii) that in respect of seven questions, two out of four options were found by the Board to be correct. 6.2. In other words, even if one goes by the final key answers released by the Board in respect of the departmental candidates, 6 out of 170 questions were wrong questions and 7 questions had more than one correct answer. Thus 13 out of 170 questions provided in the question paper for departmental candidates put the candidates in a quandary. 6.3. Similarly, for the candidates from the open market, the question paper contained 140 objective type questions, out of which, 4 questions turned out to be wrong and 3 questions were found to contain more than one option correct. 6.4. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that the whole process of selection was vitiated by question papers set up by persons who were anything but experts. Hence, the petitioners seek the cancellation of the entire examination. 6.5. Though the respondents did not file a counter, the learned Government Pleader produced a copy of the order passed in Rc.No.R1/1515/2010 dated 23.7.2010 by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board. It is stated in the said order that the preliminary key answers for the written examination conducted on 3/4.7.2010 were published in the web site on 08.7.2010 and that objections were invited from the candidates who took part in the examination. According to the respondents, a total of 708 representations (634 from candidates from the open market and 74 from the departmental candidates) were received as on 15.7.2010. The questions, the preliminary key answers and the objections of candidates were referred to a team of experts. 6.6. According to the respondents, the team of experts found discrepancies in respect of 12 questions in the question paper given to the departmental candidates. The team also found discrepancies in respect of 13 questions in the question paper for the candidates from the open market. These discrepancies are given in a tabular form in the order of the Recruitment Board dated 23.7.2010. It is as follows: Sl.No Qn. No. as per Pattern A Question Discrepancy Decision taken FOR DEPARTMENTAL CANDIDATES 1 14 The no. The team also found discrepancies in respect of 13 questions in the question paper for the candidates from the open market. These discrepancies are given in a tabular form in the order of the Recruitment Board dated 23.7.2010. It is as follows: Sl.No Qn. No. as per Pattern A Question Discrepancy Decision taken FOR DEPARTMENTAL CANDIDATES 1 14 The no. of official language in India is --- All the given options are wrong To give half a mark to all the candidates who have attempted the question 2 164 In a complaint of theft of an article, when value is less than Rs.10/- .... All the given options are wrong To give half a mark to all the candidates who have attempted the question 3 70 If R is ranked second and Q is ranked fifth, which of the following must be true? The question is wrongly framed To give half a mark to all the candidates who have attempted the question 4 75 If A+B means A is the sister of B, AxB means A is the wife of B, A--B means A is the father of B and A-B means A is the brother of B, then which of the following expresses the relationship that T is the daughter of P? The question is wrongly framed To give half a mark to all the candidates who attempted the question 5 96 "Appreciation is related to "Reward" in the same way "Disgrace" is related to -- The question is wrongly framed To give half a mark to all the candidates who attempted the question 6 156 A Police Officer, who is on compulsory wait can avail joining time to join his new post for Two options are correct To give half a mark to both the correct options (A or B) 7 111 Under Sec.173(2) Cr.PC the Report of Police Officer on completion of investigation is commonly known as -- Two options are correct To give half a mark to both the correct options (A or B) 8 64 Ramesh is standing on the bank of river with his back facing the river. A piece of paper is flowing in the water from left of Ramesh to the right. If the river is flowing from the west to the east, then find out which direction is Ramesh facing? Translation differs from English to Tamil. A piece of paper is flowing in the water from left of Ramesh to the right. If the river is flowing from the west to the east, then find out which direction is Ramesh facing? Translation differs from English to Tamil. To give half a mark to both the correct options (C or D) 9 78 What would be the most useful thing to do first of all if you see a car going at high speed which has just run over a child? Two options are correct To give half a mark to both the correct options (A or D) 10 90 Pick the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th letters of the work "REASONING", form yet another word and then write the 1st and the last letters of the word formed Two options are correct To give half a mark to both the correct options (B or C) 11 98 Read the statement given below and select the correct answer Statement: The decline of British empire should have spelt the decline of English Two options are correct To give half a mark to both the correct options (B or D) FOR CANDIDATES FROM OPEN MARKET 1 56 The minimum population required for a commodity to be sold in the market Translation differs from English to Tamil To give half a mark to all the candidates who have attempted the question 2 111 Storage of information is called ---- Translation differs from English to Tamil To give half a mark to all the candidates who have attempted the question 3 120 Conflict arises out of ---- The question is wrongly framed To give half a mark to all the candidates who have attempted the question 4 121 The police having --- are emotional generally The question is wrongly framed To give half a mark to all the candidates who have attempted the question 5 24 The 17th human chromosome is --- Two options are correct To give half a mark to both the correct options (B or D) 6 133 Rashid is three years elder to Mahesh who is the youngest but one among five boys. Ahmed is in the middle. Alexander is between Rashid and Ahmed while Mahesh is between Ahmed and John, who is 12 years of age. Which of the following statement is not true? Two options are correct. Ahmed is in the middle. Alexander is between Rashid and Ahmed while Mahesh is between Ahmed and John, who is 12 years of age. Which of the following statement is not true? Two options are correct. To give half a mark to both the correct options (B or D) 7 83 Find the odd one - 17, 27, 29, 37 Two options are correct To give half a mark to both the correct options (B or C) 8 46 Fill in the blank with appropriate preposition. "The remuneration was not adequate ----- Change in answer within the available options To change the key from A to D 9 139 Find the correct answer CVUB:BVUC::QJOI: ? Change in answer within the available options To change the key from A to B 10 96 If Z+52 and ACT=48, then BAT will be equal to --- Change in answer within the available options To change the key from C to D 11 85 Find the odd one -17, 64, 125, 144 Change in answer within the available options To change the key from D to A 12 103 Kolar mines show the largest production of gold Change in answer within the available options To change the key from A to C 13 109 If rose is called sunflower, sunflower is called lotus, lotus is called lily, lily is called poppy, and poppy is called fern, which is the queen of flowers? Change in answer within the available options To change the key from C to D 6.7. The petitioner in W.P.No.18968 of 2010, who is a departmental candidate, has raised objections with regard to six questions, for which, the respondents have given the remark as "all correct" and seven questions, for which, the Board has accepted more than one answer to be correct. 6.8. Insofar as questions for which the Board has remarked "all correct" are concerned, the petitioner has been under a misconception that all the four options given to those questions were taken by the Board to be correct. But, it was clarified by the learned Government Pleader, on the basis of the order of the Board dated 23.7.2010 that the expression "all correct" merely indicated that all candidates who attempted to answer these six questions were taken to be correct and awarded full marks, since the Board accepted these questions to be wrong. 6.9. But, it was clarified by the learned Government Pleader, on the basis of the order of the Board dated 23.7.2010 that the expression "all correct" merely indicated that all candidates who attempted to answer these six questions were taken to be correct and awarded full marks, since the Board accepted these questions to be wrong. 6.9. The petitioner in W.P.No.18968 of 2010 does not dispute the fact that the questions considered by the Board to be wrong, are actually wrong. Therefore, once it is accepted by both sides that a few questions are wrong, there are only two possible solutions, viz. (i) either to award full marks for all candidates who attempted to answer these questions; or (ii)to delete these questions in total from the question paper and confine the valuation to the remaining questions. The respondents have chosen the first option, viz., to award full marks for all candidates who attempted to answer these questions. 6.10. However, Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the better method of evaluation would be to delete those questions which are found to be wrong, rather than awarding marks only to those who attempted to answer them. 6.11. I am in total agreement with the said submission of the learned senior counsel. In respect of wrong questions, the candidates who took the examination, could be divided into two categories, viz., (i) those who knew that all the key answers to these few questions were wrong; and (ii)those who do not know this. Candidates who fall under the second category would have chosen to answer even these questions, out of ignorance. Candidates who fell under the first category, viz., those who knew all the key answers to be wrong, would have faced a dilemma as to whether they should leave the question unattempted or should make a wrong choice. If they had consciously taken a decision not to choose any of the four options on the basis that all of them were wrong, they will now get penalised because of the policy decision to award marks only to those who attempted to answer. In other words, the method of awarding marks only to those who attempted to answer the wrong questions, would put a premium on ignorance and penalty on knowledge. In other words, the method of awarding marks only to those who attempted to answer the wrong questions, would put a premium on ignorance and penalty on knowledge. Therefore, the better method of evaluation would be to delete those questions completely from the list of questions and confine the evaluation only to the remaining questions. 6.12. But, unfortunately for me (and for the petitioners), the law as laid down by the Apex Court on this issue appears to be different. In Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Saumil Garg [ (2005) 13 SCC 749 ], the Supreme Court was confronted with a situation where (i) the key answers to 8 questions were found to be palpably wrong; (ii)there was difference of opinion with regard to 2 questions; and (iii)7 questions were found to be plagued by vagueness. The Supreme Court gave the benefit of doubt to the University in respect of 2 questions on which, there was difference of opinion. In respect of 8 questions, whose key answers were found to be wrong, the Court directed revaluation. In respect of 7 questions found to be vague, the Court directed the University to give credit only to those who attempted those questions and not give credit to those who did not attempt these questions. In para 12 of its decision, the Supreme Court held as follows: "There is yet another problem, namely, that of seven questions which are so vague that they are incapable of having a correct answer. The appellant University, in respect of those seven questions, has given the credit to all the students who had participated in the entrance test irrespective of whether someone had answered the questions or not. We do not think that that is the proper course to follow. It is wholly unjust to give marks to a student who did not even attempt to answer those questions. This course would mean that a student who did not answer say all the seven questions would still get 28 marks, each correct answer having four marks. The reasonable procedure to be followed, in our opinion, would be to give credit only to those who attempted the said questions or some of them." 6.13. Therefore, irrespective of the opinion that I have on this issue, I am bound by the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court. The reasonable procedure to be followed, in our opinion, would be to give credit only to those who attempted the said questions or some of them." 6.13. Therefore, irrespective of the opinion that I have on this issue, I am bound by the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court. Moreover, Clause 4 of the Instruction Sheet given to the candidates requires the candidates to answer all the questions. Therefore, I am unable to direct the respondents to delete all the wrong questions and confine the evaluation only to the remaining questions. 6.14. Insofar as questions for which two answers are found to be correct, the only rectification that could be done by the respondents is to award marks to all candidates who chose either of the two correct options. The respondents have done this and hence, the same cannot be found fault with. 6.15. Thus, in fine, I find that the first contention raised by the petitioners is no more available to them, in view of the remedial measures taken by the respondents by the order of the Recruitment Board dated 23.7.2010. 6.16. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents should have taken more care and caution while choosing experts and the experts so chosen should also exercise due care and diligence while setting up question papers. Though the said contention is well founded, the catena of decisions available on the issue shows that right from the days of the decision in Kanpur University [ (1983) 4 SCC 309 ], the Courts have time and again come down heavily upon the cavalier manner in which question papers were set for competitive examinations. But, the cracks developed in the system three decades ago, are actually widening day by day, due to various sociological factors. Therefore, I do not think that one more sermon on the mount is going to bring forth the desired result. Hence I leave that issue at that. SECOND GROUND OF ATTACK 7.1. The second contention raised by the petitioners is that in various centres, especially the one at Lady Doak College at Madurai, candidates were permitted to sit very closely to each other and the invigilators also helped them. The petitioners rely upon a video recording in support of this allegation. 7.2. SECOND GROUND OF ATTACK 7.1. The second contention raised by the petitioners is that in various centres, especially the one at Lady Doak College at Madurai, candidates were permitted to sit very closely to each other and the invigilators also helped them. The petitioners rely upon a video recording in support of this allegation. 7.2. Assuming that the said allegation is true, the same cannot lead to an order for the cancellation of the entire examination. The examination was conducted in 32 District Headquarters. The examination held in all those centres cannot be ordered to be cancelled, merely on account of an allegation that in one of those centres, there was mass copying. 7.3. In support of their contention that the entire examination is liable to be cancelled, even if there was mass copying in one centre, the petitioners rely upon two decisions of the Apex Court. The first decision is the one rendered in The Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha [ AIR 1970 SC 1269 ]. But, in that case, the examination held at a particular centre (Hanswadih Centre) was cancelled by the Chairman of the Bihar School Examination Board on the ground that unfair means on a mass scale were reported from the centre. The cancellation of the examination by the Board was set at naught by the High Court of Patna. On an appeal by the School Examination Board, the Supreme Court held that "if there is sufficient material on which it can be demonstrated that the university was right in its conclusion that the examinations ought to be cancelled, then academic standards require that the universitys appreciation of the problem must be respected." 7.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has thoroughly misread the above judgment, as though it had laid down a proposition of law that an examination ought to be cancelled, if there was a report of mass copying. In the above judgment, the Supreme Court merely allowed the School Examination Board to have primacy in such matters. Moreover, the examinations held in all centres were not cancelled even in that case. The examination held in one particular centre was cancelled and a supplementary examination was held for the candidates in that centre alone. Therefore, the above decision does not support the contention of the petitioners. 7.5. Moreover, the examinations held in all centres were not cancelled even in that case. The examination held in one particular centre was cancelled and a supplementary examination was held for the candidates in that centre alone. Therefore, the above decision does not support the contention of the petitioners. 7.5. The counsel for the petitioners next relied upon another decision in Madhyamic Siksha Mandal v. Abhilash Siksha Prasar Samithi [ 1998 (9) SCC 326 ]. This decision is also of the same nature as the one cited above. Even in this case, an examination was cancelled by the Board and the decision of the Board was set aside by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Board. Therefore, the second contention that the examination held in all centres are liable to be cancelled, on account of the alleged mass copying that took place in one centre, cannot be countenanced. 7.6. In any event, the learned Government Pleader has produced a tabulation sheet containing details of (i) the centres in which examination took place; (ii)the number of men and women candidates who appeared for the examination; (iii)the number of men and women candidates who were declared successful in the written examination; and (iv)the percentage of candidates declared successful. This tabulation shows that in Madurai, the percentage of success of male candidates both from the open market and from among the departmental candidates was 8.8% and 13.9% respectively. The percentage of success of women candidates from the open market and from among the departmental candidates was 23.5% and 26.4% respectively. There are very many centres where the percentage of success of candidates is more. It is interesting to note that the percentage of success of male candidates from the open market in Pudukottai District was the lowest (3.7%). It was the highest in Thoothukudi District (10.4%). The performance of the female candidates appear to be far better in all centres and there is no allegation of copying in any of those centres. Therefore, the second contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted. 7.7. In the photographs and the video recording relied upon by the petitioners, a few candidates are seen sitting next to each other and a few appear to be in conversation. The learned Government Pleader also produced a video recording, that was forwarded to the Chief Ministers Grievance Cell. Therefore, the second contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted. 7.7. In the photographs and the video recording relied upon by the petitioners, a few candidates are seen sitting next to each other and a few appear to be in conversation. The learned Government Pleader also produced a video recording, that was forwarded to the Chief Ministers Grievance Cell. I have seen the video clippings and the photographs. Neither the photographs nor the video clippings advance the case of the petitioners any further. It is admitted on both sides that though the question papers given to the candidates contained the same questions, they were arranged in four different sequences and distributed in such a manner that persons sitting next to each other would have the same questions arranged in a different order. This was to disable the candidates from indulging in copying. Therefore, even if the allegation that a few candidates were seen in conversation is presumed to be true, there is very little that both could have done to improve their performance. Therefore, the second contention is rejected. THIRD GROUND OF ATTACK 8.1. The third contention of the petitioners is that for departmental candidates, the question paper was supposed to be divided into two parts, with Part I comprising of 30 questions on General Knowledge revolving around General Science, History of India, Geography and Economics and Commerce and Part II comprising of 140 questions on Mental Ability, Police Standing Orders, Police Administration, Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Penal Code and Evidence Act. But, in the question paper, 55 questions which were actually covered by the syllabus in Part I, were found in Part II. 8.2. Similarly, in the question paper for the candidates from the open market, 80 questions were to be in General Knowledge under Part I, covering various subjects such as General Science, History of India, Geography, Economics and Commerce, Indian Polity, Current Events, Logical Analysis, Numerical Analysis, Communication skills and Information handling skills. 60 questions are to be in Part II covering various branches of Psychology. But, in the question paper given to the petitioner, the questions that should fall under Part II were included in Part I. Therefore, the petitioners contend that the question papers, both for departmental candidates and for the open market candidates, over reached the syllabus indicated before the examination. 8.3. But, in the question paper given to the petitioner, the questions that should fall under Part II were included in Part I. Therefore, the petitioners contend that the question papers, both for departmental candidates and for the open market candidates, over reached the syllabus indicated before the examination. 8.3. A careful consideration of the above contention of the petitioners would show that the petitioners do not allege that some of the questions were actually out of syllabus. Their simple grievance is that the balance between Part I and Part II sought to be maintained in the syllabus indicated before the examination was tilted, with questions that should actually fall in one Part encroaching into the other Part. 8.4. But, the above contention is to be stated only to be rejected. So long as the questions framed by the respondents conformed to the syllabus, the candidates cannot really make out a grievance. After all, what was held was only one examination. The respondents did not hold one examination on General Knowledge on a particular day and another examination on other subjects on a different day. Hence, the manner in which the number of questions were distributed between General Knowledge and other subjects, can hardly be the subject matter of judicial review. Therefore, the third contention of the petitioners should also fail. 9.1. Finally, Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire selection process is shrouded in secrecy and mystery and that the Recruitment Board is not even prepared to release the cut off marks and the marks secured by the candidates in the written examination. Therefore, the learned senior counsel requested that at least a direction may be issued to the respondents to release the cut off marks and the marks secured by all the candidates. 9.2. Though the above grievance of the petitioners is justified and though I have also allowed a writ petition in W.P.Nos.18427 and 18439 of 2010 granting a similar request, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Board has preferred an appeal against the said order and hence, they are not in a position to release the cut off marks. Therefore, I am unable to issue a direction in this regard. In view of the foregoing, I find no merits in the writ petitions. Hence, they are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Therefore, I am unable to issue a direction in this regard. In view of the foregoing, I find no merits in the writ petitions. Hence, they are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 of 2010 in both the writ petitions are also dismissed.