Courts cannot shut its eyes to apparent errors; only ostrich donning judicial robes will hide its head in sand: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently said that though courts normally refrain from interfering with the opinions of expert bodies, if such opinion was demonstrably wrong, courts must not keep their eyes shut to such error. .In an order passed on November 2, Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench of Madras High Court directed the State Teachers' Recruitment Board to award an extra mark to a woman candidate, who despite selecting the right answer had lost a mark, because the question setters had decided on the incorrect option as correct answer. The Court was hearing a petition filed by a woman candidate belonging to a Backward class, who had appeared for the post of an English Postgraduate Assistant in the exam conducted by the State authorities in 2021. She lost out on making it to the merit list by one mark on account of the above error. The question required all candidates to complete a quote by American poet Allen Tate. While the petitioner chose option 'c', which was the correct answer, the answer key to the question paper had wrongly marked option 'a' as the right answer. The Board, however, argued that the opinion expressed by its expert committee was final and that it was not open for the court to "second guess" the correctness of the final key answers. It urged the court to dismiss the writ petition The court however, said that “Satyameva Jayate” was the "national motto" and judicial review must not be totally ousted in certain circumstances. "Where the key answer is manifestly and patently erroneous, interference will be warranted," the single-judge underlined..Justice Swaminathan, therefore, said that when the material relied upon by the respondent counsel itself showed that the key answer was patently erroneous, it was necessary for the Courts to interfere, otherwise absurd consequences will ensue. "The court cannot shut its eyes to what is too obvious and apparent. Only an ostrich donning judicial robes will hide its head in the sand," the high court said. "Let me demonstrate. Assume, the question is 'who is now the Prime Minister of India?' The candidate writes 'Shri.Narendra Modi.' If the key answer is 'Shri.Rahul Gandhi,' will it not be absurd?" the court asked. Thus, concluding that the petitioner was wrongfully denied extra mark, the court directed the Board to correct the marks of the petitioner and make necessary changes to the selection list also. Advocate K Mahendran appeared for the petitioner. Advocate V Shanmuganthan appeared for the respondents. .[Read Order]