IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.07.2014
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
W.P.No.32719 of 2014 and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014
Mrs.K.P.Hafsath ... Petitioner
1.Teachers Recruitment Board,
Rep. By its Chairman,
2.The Director of School Education,
Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to award one mark each to questions 46, 48, 51 and 146 in the written examination for direct recruitment to the post of P.G.Assistant 2013 (Economics) (Roll No.13 PG 10100013) in Addition to 90 marks already awarded and thereby select and appoint me as Post Graduate Assistant (Economics) and grant all consequential reliefs.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Muthukumaran
For R.1 : Mr.D.Krishna Kumar,
Special Government Pleader
For R.2 : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi,
Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This writ petition has been listed before me as a specially ordered case on the orders of the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice dated 25.06.2014.
2.The Teachers Recruitment Board, Government of Tamil Nadu, conducted direct recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Assistant for the year 2012-2013. The petitioner participated in the said examination. Her Roll Number is 13 PG 10100013. The question papers were in four series. The questions were of objective type. The petitioner was supplied with 'C' series question paper for Economics subject. She has secured 90 marks. According to the petitioner, for question Nos.46, 48, 51 and 146 though, she had answered rightly, she has not been awarded each one mark to the said questions.
3.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent and I have also perused the records carefully.
4.The first question to be adjudicated upon is question No.46 in Economics subject 'C' Series. Question No.46 reads as follows:-
46.The Revealed Preference Theory is based on
A) Cardinal Measurement of Utility
B) Ordinal Measurement of Utility
C) Observed Consumer Behavior
D) Weak Ordering.
5.According to the Teachers Recruitment Board, option C (C) Observed Consumer Behavior) is the right answer. But, according to the petitioner, option B (Ordinal Measurement of Utility) is the right answer.
6.Today, three experts in the said subject are present before this Court who are Dr.C.Theerthalingam, M.A, M.Phil, Ph.D., Assistant Professor from the Dr.Ambedkar Government Arts College, Vysarpadi, Chennai 600 039; Dr.A.Vijayakanth, M.A, M.Phil, Ph.D., Assistant Professor from the Dr.Ambedkar Government Arts College, Vysarpadi, Chennai 600 039 and Dr.K.V.Soudaminy, M.A, M.Phil, Ph.D., Assistant Professor from the Queen Mary's College, Chennai 600 004. This Court had the benefit of hearing them also.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the text book prescribed for the Higher Secondary School students wherein, it is stated as follows:-
There are two basic approaches to the study of consumer demand theory. The first approach is the utility approach. It involves the use of measurable (cardinal) utility to study consumer behaviour. Marshall is the chief exponent of the utility approach to the theory of demand. It is known as cardinal utility analysis. The second approach is the indifference curve approach which uses the idea of comparable utility (ordinal utility), J.R.Hicks and R.G.D Allen introduced the indifference curve approach.
8.Relying on the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Revealed Preference Theory is based on ordinal measurement of Utility. Thus, according to him, option B is the right answer.
9.The Experts who are present in Court would explain about these theories namely the Cardinal Measurement of Utility theory; Ordinal Measurement of Utility and observed consumer behaviour.
10.I have considered the above submissions.
11.Admittedly, there are two basic approaches to the consumer demand theory. The first approach is cardinal utility approach in which, using measurables (cardinal) utility of the goods is measured. Here, the utility is measurable. In ordinal utility theory, the utility is not measurable. After these two theories, the nobel laureate economist, Prof.Samuelson's evolved a new theory, known as Revealed Preference Theory. This theory analyses consumer's preference for a combination of goods on the basis of observed consumer behaviour in the market. From this explanation made by the Experts and the books referred to by them known as Principles of Economics authored by Mr.M.L.Jhingan and the Micro Economic Theory authored by Mr.K.N.Verma, it is clear that in ordinal utility theory, the utility is not measurable and in cardinal utility theory, the utility is measurable, whereas, in Revealed Preference Theory, there is no question of either measuring or not measuring the utility.
12.Here, the theory speaks of consumers preference, in a combination of facts on the basis of observed consumer behaviour in the market. Thus, the Revealed Preference Theory of demand has got nothing to do with the ordinal measurement of utility. Therefore, as said by the Experts, option C is the right answer.
13.Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the 12th Standard Economics Text Book, it is stated as though there is some connection between cardinal measurement of Utility and Revealed Preference Theory, obviously, the said statement is wrong. Here, I should say, the examination is not for a pass in the 12th standard but, it is a competitive examination to find out or to measure the knowledge of a candidate for teaching. When that be so, being a Post Graduate, the petitioner must know the difference between the Cardinal measurement and Ordinal measurement and revealed preference. Simply, because some statement is found in the 12th Standard text book, the petitioner cannot plead ignorance of the difference between these three theories. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected.
14.The second question to be adjudicated upon in this subject is question No.48 'C' Series. Question No.48 reads as follows:-
48.An income demand curve for inferior commodity always slopes
A) Upwards to the right
C) Downwards to the right
15.According to the Teachers Recruitment Board, option B (Backwards) is the right answer. But, according to the petitioner, option C (Downwards to the right) is the right answer.
16.The Experts who are present in Court would refer to the Book titled as Principles of Economics authored by Mr.M.L.Jhingan wherein, in page Nos.93 & 94, the income demand curve has been mentioned. According to the book, income demand indicates the relationship between the income and the quantity of commodity demanded. It relates to the various quantities of the commodity or service that will be paid by the consumers at various levels of income in the given period of time, other facts being equal. The income and demand relationship is usually direct. But in the case of inferior goods, the income demand curve is backwards sloping. If it is other than inferior goods, according to them, the income curve may be upwards. The income demand curve has a positive slope. Thus, it is crystal clear that in the case of inferior goods, when the income increases, the desire to purchase inferior goods will get reduced and therefore, the Income curve will turn backwards. In the same book, the income demand curve for ordinary goods and the income demand curve for inferior goods has been drawn. From this, I am satisfied that the experts are right in their submissions that option B (Backwards) is the right answer. The petitioner is not able to demonstrate as to how the option C (Downwards to the right) is the r