Judgment : 1. In W.P.No.16003/2014, the petitioner's daughter, namely K.T.Elanithi appeared in the Higher Secondary Course Examination during March 2014 in Reg.No.435730 and has secured 1143 marks out of 1200 marks and her overall percentage is 95.25%. The petitioner would further state that his daughter has been awarded 191 marks out of 200 marks in Biology subject, which works out to 95.5%, but she was expecting centum in the said subject and therefore, photocopy of the answer script was obtained and applied for revaluation and even in the revaluation, there was no change in marks and on perusing the mark sheet it was found that in respect of question No.25, the daughter of the petitioner, though written the correct answer, has not been awarded any mark. The petitioner would further contend that even in the revaluation, the respondents 1 and 2 have not followed the answer key published by their department in awarding marks for question No.25 and since the daughter of the petitioner has written correct answer, she is entitled to get full 3 marks in the subject of Zoology and consequently, she is entitled for 194 out of 200 marks in the said subject and in that event, she will get admission in a meritorious manner in a reputed Government medical college according to merit/rank list and therefore, came forward to file this writ petition. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.16004/2013 would state that her daughter, namely Abirami appeared in the Higher Secondary Course Examination during March 2014 in Reg.No.435712 and secured 1165 marks out of 1200 marks and in Biology subject she was awarded 195 marks out of 200 marks, which works out to 97.5%. The petitioner would further state that her daughter was expecting centum in the said subject and therefore, obtained photocopy of the answer script and applied for revaluation and in revaluation, there is no change in the marks and when the answer script was perused, it was found that the valuers has not awarded any mark for question No.25, though her daughter had written the correct answer. The petitioner would further state that even in the revaluation, the respondents 1 and 2 have not followed the answer key published in the department for awarding marks for question No.25 and since the petitioner's daughter has written correct answer, she is entitled to get full 3 marks and consequently, her cut off mark will be more and will get admission in a meritorious manner in a reputed Government medical college according to her merit/rank list and therefore, came forward to file this writ petition. 3. Mr.S.Thanka Sivan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions would submit that the petitioners have studied in Tamil Medium and written the examinations in Tamil and drawn the attention of this Court to Part-III, Biology Question Paper and more particularly to question No.25 in Part-II (Zoology) Section B and would submit that as per the said question, a candidate has to answer any three impact of solar energy and since the writ petitioners had written the answers correctly, they ought to have been given three marks each and since they have failed to do so, these writ petitions have been filed and also drawn the attention of this Court to the English version of the key answer and would submit that out of two options, the petitioners had exercised one option and written the answers correctly and as a matter of right, they are entitled to get three marks each and hence, prays for appropriate orders. 4. Per contra, Mr.D.Krishnakumar, learned Special Government Pleader (Education) would submit that admittedly the petitioners had written the answers in Tamil and as per the Tamil key answer, they have to write the negative impact of solar energy and whereas the petitioners had written the positive impact of solar energy and since the answers given by them to Question No.25 did not tally with Zoology book Tamil version as well as the key answer in Tamil version, they have not been awarded any mark and prays for dismissal of these writ petitions. 5. This Court paid its best attention to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader (Education) appearing for the respondents and perused the answer scripts of the petitioners, key answer to Question No.25 as well as Tamil and English version of Zoology Textbook of Higher Secondary Course. 6. 5. This Court paid its best attention to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader (Education) appearing for the respondents and perused the answer scripts of the petitioners, key answer to Question No.25 as well as Tamil and English version of Zoology Textbook of Higher Secondary Course. 6. It is relevant to extract the following for the purpose of deciding these writ petitions: “LANGUAGE” Mention any three impact of solar energy. Tamil version of the key answer to Question No.25: “LANGUAGE” English version of the key answer to Question No.25: 25. Impact of solar energy 1. Cadmium used in fabricating thin film solar cells is poisonous and carcinogenic. 2. Carbon dioxide produced while forming silicon from silica may increase atmospheric temperature. 3. Cause green house effect. 4. Silicon dust is also in important occupational hazard. (any three) (Or) A) Solar energy is a kind of Universal, decentralized and non-polluting energy. B) It helps considerably in maintaining the ecological balance through the process of photosynthesis and green house effect. C) It has none of the disadvantages found in the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil or gas. “LANGUAGE” Solar Energy: Solar energy is another energy source. Each year the earth receives from the sun an enormous 5 x1020 k.cals of energy. Solar energy, which is the primary source of all energy forms on the earth, is the renewable form of energy. Advantages of solar energy: (a) Solar energy is a kind of universal, decentralized and nonpolluting energy, (b) it helps considerably in maintaining the ecological balance through the process of photosynthesis and green house effect, (c) it has none of the disadvantages found in the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil or gas. Environmental impacts ..... 4. Solar energy The use of solr energy from the environment view point, is a completely safe option. However, the sites for larger installations of solar power plants should be selected without reducing the forest cover. Cadmium, used in fabricating thin film solar cells, is poisonous and a possible carcinogen. Carbon dioxide produced while forming silicon from silica may increase the atmospheric temperature causing green house effect. Silicon dust is also an important occupational hazard. 7. However, the sites for larger installations of solar power plants should be selected without reducing the forest cover. Cadmium, used in fabricating thin film solar cells, is poisonous and a possible carcinogen. Carbon dioxide produced while forming silicon from silica may increase the atmospheric temperature causing green house effect. Silicon dust is also an important occupational hazard. 7. It is the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that insofar as English version of Biology Zoology textbook is concerned, there was some confusion for the reason that Page No.157 of the said version also speaks about solar energy as well as Page No.159 and therefore, the Joint Director (Higher Education) has issued a Key Answer -Erratum and as per the Erratum, in respect of the candidates who have written answer to question No.25 in English, direction has been given to award 3 marks if they write their answer correctly regarding positive impact of solar energy or negative impact of solar energy. It is the further submission of the learned Special Government Pleader (Education) that in respect of candidates who had written their answers in Tamil regarding question No.25, there was no confusion for the reason that Tamil version of question No.25 is and in this connection attention of this Court was also invited to Page No.182 of the Tamil version of the textbook, which has been extracted above and the correct version is at Page No.182 and the topic heading is and sub-clause (4) speaks about negative impact of solar energy and it is the correct answer in respect of question No.25 of the Tamil version. The learned Special Government Pleader (Education) contended that insofar as Tamil version of question No.25 is concerned, there is no confusion and therefore, the candidates who have written the answer in Tamil in respect of question No.25 is bound to answer to clause (4) of Page No.182 of the Tamil version of the textbook and since the petitioners herein instead of writing negative impact of solar energy had written positive impact of solar energy, have not been awarded any mark. 8. 8. In response to the said submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the answer script of one A.Preethi bearing Reg.No.509476, who has written the examination at Government Higher Secondary School, Ayakkaranpulam in respect of Biology subject and would submit that the said candidate has also written the answers in Tamil and though she has written positive impact of solar energy, she has been awarded full 3 marks and therefore, the respondents, in all fairness, ought to have awarded 3 marks to the petitioners also and they cannot be treated differently. However, this Court is not persuaded to accept the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners for the following reasons. 9. As rightly contended by the learned Special Government Pleader (Education), in respect of English version of question No.25, there appears to be a confusion as to whether a candidate has to write the answers as to the positive impact of the solar energy or negative impact of the solar energy and therefore, clarification was issued by the Joint Director (Higher Secondary Education) in the form of Erratum to the Key Answer and any candidate who has written the answer in English in respect of question No.25, if they written their answer correctly either for positive impact or negative impact of solar energy, the examiners concerned were directed to award 3 full marks. Insofar as Tamil version of the question is concerned, the important word is and the said order assumes importance for the reason that in Page No.182 of the Tamil version, the topic heading is and therefore, the candidates who had written the answer in Tamil is expected to write clause (4) of the said heading, which is at Page No.182 of the Tamil version of the textbook and the key answer is also in consonance with the textbook version. Unfortunately, the petitioners herein, instead of writing negative impact of solar energy, has written positive impact of solar energy and therefore, they have not been awarded any mark for that question, as according to the examiners it was a wrong answer. 10. Unfortunately, the petitioners herein, instead of writing negative impact of solar energy, has written positive impact of solar energy and therefore, they have not been awarded any mark for that question, as according to the examiners it was a wrong answer. 10. It is the vehement submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that though a candidate by name A.Preethi has also written the Biology examination in Tamil in some other centre and in respect of question No.25, she has answered the positive impact of solar energy, she has been awarded 3 marks and therefore, the petitioners, who had written the examination in some other centre cannot be discriminated and the respondents ought to have awarded them 3 marks each. However, this Court is unable to accept the said submission for the reason that the Tamil version of the key answer to question No.25 is in consonance with the Tamil version of the textbook simply because a particular examiner has committed mistake in awarding 3 marks to a candidate, namely A.Preethi, who has written the examination in some other centre, it should be repeated by other examiners who had valued the answer scripts in other centres. 11. This Court, in the order dated 27.11.2013 in W.P(MD).No.18458/2013, has considered almost a similar issue and by placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta [AIR 1983 SC 1250], has held that it is the duty of the petitioner to demonstrate before this Court the counter answer is the right answer and then only he/she is entitled to mark for that question. However, in the case on hand, the petitioners had failed to do so and therefore, they are not entitled to any relief as prayed for. 12. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.