W.P.(MD) No.2908 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR W.P.(MD) No.2908 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.2395 & 2396 of 2026 S.Vasuthevan ... Petitioner -vs- 1.Teachers Recruitment Board rep.by its Chairman 3rd Floor, Puratchi Thalaivar Dr.MGR Centenary Building DPI Campus, College Road Chennai-600 006 2.Teachers Recruitment Board rep.by its Member Secretary 3rd Floor, Puratchi Thalaivar Dr.MGR Centenary Building DPI Campus, College Road Chennai-600 006 ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of declaration to declare the framing of wrong answer key in respect of the direct recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Assistants in Commerce _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2908 of 2026 subject and the consequential provisional selection list published by the second respondent as illegal and consequently for a direction directing the respondents to award 3 marks for the question No.40, 42 and 74 (Tentative Answer Key Master Copy) and select and appoint the petitioner in the post of Post Graduate Assistant in Commerce subject within the time period stipulated by this Court within the time period stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Aswin Raja Simman For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan Standing Counsel O R D E R In response to a Notification issued by the respondent – Teachers Recruitment Board (TRB) vide advertisement No.02/2025, dated 10.07.2025, the petitioner applied for the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Commerce) vide Application No.PGA040264 and participated in the examination with Roll No. 25PG 0823070326 and secured 85 marks under BC Category. As the cut-off mark prescribed for the BC Category for the post of PG Assistant (Commerce) is 87 marks, the petitioner could not come up for selection. _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2908 of 2026 2. After the examination held for the said post on 12.10.2025, a tentative answer key was published by the respondent – TRB on 15.10.2025 on their website calling for the objections from the candidates and accordingly, on receipt of the objections, the final answer key along with the results of the examination and list of shortlisted candidates for certificate verification was published by the respondent – TRB on their website on 27.11.2025. As against the tentative answer key that was published by the respondent – TRB, the petitioner raised an objection in respect of question Nos.40, 42 & 74 and claimed that the answers provided in the final answer key published by the respondent – TRB in respect of the question Nos.40, 42 & 74 are not correct and therefore, he is entitled for award of three marks. The petitioner has explained his stand in an elaborate manner in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition and contended that the respondent – TRB has not considered the objections raised by him in respect of the question Nos.40, 42 & 74 and acted in an arbitrary manner, thereby depriving the petitioner from being selected for the post of PG Assistant (Commerce). _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2908 of 2026 3. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent – TRB filed their counter-affidavit contending that in respect of question No.40, objection has been raised only by the petitioner, insofar as question No.42 is concerned, it is stated that, in all 133 objections have been raised and insofar as question No.74 is concerned, in all, 43 objections have been raised by the candidates, including the petitioner herein. It is further contended that all the objections, that were raised by all the candidates, have been referred to the Expert Committee and the Expert Committee, after examining the matter in detail, rejected all the objections raised by the candidates and the final key was published by the respondent – TRB on their website on 27.11.2025, was held to be correct in respect of the question Nos.40, 42 & 74, in respect of which the petitioner has raised his objections. 4. 4. This Court, having taken note of the stand of the respondent – TRB that the Expert Committee has examined the objections raised by the candidates and accordingly, arrived at the conclusion that the final key, that was published by them in their website on 27.11.2025, was held to be correct in respect of the question Nos.40, 42 & 74, on 14.07.2026, called for the relevant records in connection with the decision taken by the Expert Committee constituted by the respondent – TRB. Accordingly, today, _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2908 of 2026 Mr.T.Amjad Khan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent – TRB, placed before this Court the relevant records of the Expert Committee dealing with the objections raised by the candidates in respect of the final answer key that was published by the respondent – TRB in their website on 27.11.2025 and held to be correct in respect of the question Nos.40, 42 & 74. 5. This Court has perused the said records and heard Mr.T.Aswin Raja Simman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Amjad Khan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent – TRB, in detail. 6. The scope of interference by the Court in the matter like the one on hand is very limited as held by the Honourable Apex Court time and again, especially in the case of Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 and U.P.P.S.C. through its Chairman and another vs. Rahul Singh & another, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254. 7. In the light of the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the above referred decisions, the case on hand has to be examined. However, the scope of such examination is limited to the extent of verifying as to whether the Expert Committee constituted by the respondent – TRB has _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2908 of 2026 considered the objections raised by the candidates, including the petitioner, in a reasonable manner or there is any arbitrariness in such an exercise or not. 8. This Court, after having perused the records produced by the respondent – TRB pertaining to the decision of the Expert Committee in respect of the question Nos.40, 42 & 74, is thoroughly convinced that insofar as question Nos.42 & 74 are concerned, as the materials placed before this Court would disclose that there is due application of mind by the Expert Committee while arriving at the conclusion and holding that the key answer provided by the respondent – TRB is correct, this Court does not find any reason to doubt the application of mind by the Expert Committee while dealing with the objections raised by the candidates, in respect of question Nos.42 & 74 are concerned. 9. Insofar as question No.40 is concerned, it is only the petitioner, who has raised an objection contending that there is no correct answer in the multiple answers provided by the respondent – TRB. The Expert Committee, while dealing with the said objection, has assigned a reason by simply stating as extracted hereunder: _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2908 of 2026 “Evidence provided is correct. Claim made is irrelevant. Key provided by TRB is correct. D is the right answer.” 10. The above reason assigned by the Expert Committee, in the considered view of this Court, does not convey any meaning. What is the evidence, that is found correct, is not clear. Whether it is the evidence provided by the petitioner or by the respondent – TRB is not clear. It is also not clear on what basis, the Expert Committee has come to the conclusion that the claim made by the petitioner is irrelevant. In the considered view of this Court, the Expert Committee ought to have explained the reason in detail for rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court finds that in respect of question No.40, the manner, in which the Expert Committee has arrived at the conclusion and holding that the answer key provided by the respondent – TRB is correct, is not supported by any reason and arbitrary. 11. However, in the instant case, the petitioner herein, having taken a stand that none of the key answers provided by the respondent – TRB are correct in respect of question No.40, has admittedly provided answer to the said question as option “A” and having claimed the said option, the petitioner is estopped from contending that none of the answers provided are _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2908 of 2026 correct. Even otherwise, the petitioner missed the selection with two marks and even if one mark is awarded to the petitioner in respect of question No.40 accepting his contention, the same will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner and therefore, no useful purpose would be served even if the respondent – TRB is directed to award one mark to the petitioner. The question of awarding one mark will arise only when it is established by the petitioner that none of the answers provided in the answer key is correct answer. Whether the stand of the petitioner is right or not cannot be examined by this Court by stepping into the shoes of the Expert Committee. It is only in case this Court comes to the conclusion that any useful purpose would be served by referring the said question to another Committee, then this Court may resorted to such process. In the light of the above conclusion, even if the petitioner is awarded one mark, no useful purpose would be served and still he would remain short of one more mark. Hence, this Court is not inclined to undertake any such course of action. 12. In the light of the above and taking into consideration the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the above referred decisions, this Court does not see any reason to grant the relief as sought for by the petitioner. _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2908 of 2026 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 20.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No krk _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.2908 of 2026 MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J. krk W.P.(MD) No.2908 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.2395 & 2396 of 2026 20.07.2026 _______________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis