IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.07.2014

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

W.P.Nos.29347 to 29349 of 2013

M.P.Nos.1, 1, 1, 2, 2 and 2 of 2013

M.Sathishkumar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.29347/2013

M.Manikandan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.29348/2013

C.Palani .. Petitioner in W.P.No.29349/2013

- Vs -

The Chairman,

Teachers Recruitment Board,

E.V.K.Sampath Maligai,

DPI Compound, College Road,

Chennai - 600 009. .. Respondent in all the WPs

Prayer in all the WPs:- Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the Provisional Selection List for the direct
recruitment for the Post of Graduate Assistants in Government Higher
Secondary Schools 2012-2013 for the subject of Physics on the file of
the respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent
to evaluate and provide marks for the entire 150 questions in the
Written Examination dated 21.7.2013 conducted by the respondent and
consequently allot correct marks for the error in Question No.63 and
consider the petitioner for recruitment of Post Graduate Assistants
(Physics) within the stipulated time by this Honourable Court.

Petitioners : Mr.R.Prabhakaran

For Respondent : Mr.D.Krishnakumar

Special Government Pleader

- - - - -

C O M M O N O R D E R

Since
common issues are involved in all these writ petitions, the same were
heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common order.

2. These
writ petitions have been listed before me as a specially ordered case on
the orders of the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice dated 25.06.2014.

3. The
Teachers Recruitment Board conducted exam for Post Graduate Assistants /
Physical Education Director Gr.-I Examination - 2013. The petitioners
participated in the said examination. Their Roll Numbers are
13PG13040524, 13PG18040235 and 13PG15040073 respectively. The question
papers were in four series. The questions were of objective type. The
petitioners were supplied with 'C' and 'D' series question papers
respectively. They had secured 100, 101 and 101 marks respectively.
According to the petitioners, for question Nos.31, 78, 86 and 88 though
they had answered rightly, they have not been awarded each one mark to
the said questions.

4. I have
heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned
Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent as well as
perused the records carefully.

5. It is
brought to my notice by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing
for the respondent that the correctness of the question No.88 in 'D'
series has been decided by this Court in an earlier writ petition in
W.P.No.29346 of 2013 dated 03.07.2014. In view of the said admitted
position, the said question is not taken up for adjudication in these
writ petitions.

6. Question No.31 in 'D' series reads as follows:

Q.No.31.
Express 7x4-9x2+2 in terms of Legendre Polynomials. Given P2(x) = =
(3x2-1), P3(x)=5x2-3x/2 and P4(x) = 1/8 (35x4-30x2+3)

(A) 8P4(x)-P2(x)+P0(x)

(B) 2/5 (4P4(x)-5P2(x) + P0(x))

(C) 8/5(P4(x)-4P3(x)+2P2(x)-P0(x)

(D) 1/7 (P4(x)-2P3(x) + 2P2(x)-P0(x)

7.
According to TRB the question itself is wrong and therefore the same was
omitted from valuation. But, according to the petitioners, option 'B'
is the right answer.

8. Today,
three experts in the Physics subject are present before this Court who
are (1) Dr.A.Subbiah Pandi, Associate Professor, Department of Physics,
Presidency College, Chennai, (2) Dr.K.Chitra, Associate Professor,
Department of Physics, Bharathi Women's College, Chennai and (3)
Dr.B.Uma Maheswari, Associate Professor, Department of Physics, Bharathi
Women's College, Chennai. This Court had the benefit of hearing them
also. The experts would explain to me that the basic equation is as
follows:

Pn(x) = 1/2n n! ??(x) = 1/2n n! dny/dxn = 1/2nn! dn/dxn (x2-1)n "

In this formula 'n' is substituted by 0, 1, 2, 3..... and if 'n' is
zero, as per the formula the deduced answer will be one. If 'n' is 1
then the deduced answer is 'x'. If 'n' is 2 then the deduced answer will
be 1/2(3x2-1). If 'n' is 3 then the deduced answer will be 5x3-3x/2.
But in this question, the 'n' value has been given as 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4.
So far as the deduced value when 'n' is 2, it has been correctly given
as = (3x2-1). Similarly when 'n' is 4 value of deduced answer is
correct. But so far as the value of 'n' as 3 is concerned, in the
question itself the deduced answer is wrong i.e. instead of 5x3-3x/2 it
has been mentioned as 5x2-3x/2. Therefore, this question was deleted
by the TRB.

9. The
experts produced a standard text book known as 'Mathematical Physics'
authored by Satya Prakash. I am able to understand that when 'n' value
is given as 3 the deduced answer should be 5x3-3x/2, but since it has
been given as 5x2-3x/2 the question itself is wrong and it may be true
that option 'B' can be deduced by applying the above deduced values, but
that cannot be correct because it is the standard formula that if 'n'
is substituted by 3 then the deduced answer must be 5x3-3x/2. Therefore,
I agree with the experts and I hold that the TRB was right in deleting
the question from valuation.

10. Next is Question No.78 in 'D' series which reads as follows:

Q.No.78. Total energy of perfect Bore-Einstein gas is :

(A) E=3/2 nkT [1 - A/25/2 A2/35/2 - ....]

(B) E=1/2 nkT [1 - A/25/2 A2/35/2 - ....]

(C) E=3/2 nkT [1 + A/25/2 + A2/35/2 + ....]

(D) E=1/2 nkT [1 + A/25/2 + A2/35/2 + ....]

11.
According to TRB, they have deleted the said question from valuation
because none of the option is correct. But, according to the
petitioners, option 'A' is the right answer.

12. The
petitioners would rely on a text book known as 'Statistical Mechanics
authored by Gupta and Kumar, wherein, option 'A' has been shown as the
correct answer.

13. But
the experts present before this Court has referred to the Standard text
book titled Thermodynamics and an Introduction to Thermostatistics by
Herbert B.Callen, wherein, it is stated that the question should have
contained the temperature status. If the temperature is greater than
the critical temperature then the answer would be one thing and if the
temperature is less than the critical temperature than the answer would
be different. Since the temperature is not given in the question, the
question has to be deleted. But the experts would fairly concede that
in all the books authored by Indian authors including the book authored
by Gupta and Kumar the temperature is not at all taken into effect.

14. In my
view, for having read the books authored by Indian authors, the
petitioners who have answered option 'A' need not be penalised. In such
view of the matter, the deletion of this question from valuation is not
correct and therefore the TRB should revalue Question No.78 in 'D'
series and award one mark to all the candidates who have answered option
'A' as the right answer.

15. The next is Question No.86 in 'D' series which reads as follows:

Q.No.86. The binding energy of an ?-particle is :

(A) 2.031882 u (B) 3.031882 u

(C) 4.031882 u (D) 5.031882 u

16.
According to TRB all the answers given are wrong and therefore the
question has been omitted from valuation. But, according to the
petitioners, option 'C' is the right answer.

17. The
petitioners would rely on a textbook titled Modern Physics authored by
Mr.R.Murugeshan and another, wherein at page 387, it is stated as
follows:

"Calculate the binding energy of an ?-particle and express the result both in MeV and joules:

Solution: Mass of 2 protons + 2 neutrons = (2x1.007276 + 2x1.008665)u

= 4.031882u

Mass of the ?-particle = 4.001506u

Mass defect ?m = 4.031882 4.001506)u = 0.030376u

` B.E.=(0.030376x931.3)MeV = 28.29 MeV.

= 45.32 x 10-13J "

18. It is
the admitted case that total mass of helium is 4.031882u, but according
to the formula, binding energy is to be calculated by deducting the
mass of the alpha particle and then applying the formula. The formula
for calculating binding energy per neculon is equal to mass defect and
931.3 MeV. As per the calculation made, the binding energy of
?-particle must be 28.29 MeV. But all the four options given refers
only to the total mass of ?-particle. Thus, no option refers to binding
energy and therefore no option is the right answer. But the petitioner
would state that binding energy is directly proportionate to the mass
of helium and therefore option 'C' should be taken as the correct
answer.

19. In my
considered opinion it is not possible because there is a vast
difference between mass value and binding energy. From mass value
binding energy has to be calculated after deducting the mass of the
alpha particle and therefore the question in my considered opinion is
wrong. As has been stated by the experts the question is wrong.
Therefore, I agree with the experts and I hold that the TRB was right
in deleting the question from valuation.

20. At
this juncture, I have to say that the power of this Court to interfere
with the decision of experts in respect of key answers has been
elaborately dealt with in a number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, about which, I need not elaborate. I deem it suffice to refer to
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University Vs.
Samir Gupta, reported in 1983 (4) SCC 309, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that if the key answer is demonstrably wrong, then only
this Court has got power to interfere with the same. Applying the said
decision, we have to examine this case as to whether the key answer set
by the respondents is demonstrably wrong. Here, in this case, the
petitioner is not able to demonstrate that the key answer pertaining to
question No.31 is wrong.

21. The challenge to other questions are not pressed by the petitioners.

22. In view of all the above, the writ petitions are disposed of on the following terms.

(i) The challenge made to Question Nos.31 and 86 in 'D' series are rejected.

(ii) It
is directed that TRB should revalue all the answer sheets of the
candidates and award one mark to those candidate who have answered
option 'A' as the right answer for Question No.78 in 'D' series. Thus
the challenge to this question succeeds.

The interim orders already granted are hereby vacated. Consequently,
the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

04.07.2014

Index : Yes / No

kk

NOTE: Issue order copy on or before 15.07.2014.

S.NAGAMUTHU.J.,

kk

To

The Chairman,

Teachers Recruitment Board,

E.V.K.Sampath Maligai,

DPI Compound, College Road,

Chennai - 600 009.

W.P.Nos.29347 to 29349 of 2013

M.P.Nos.1, 1, 1, 2, 2 and 2 of 2013

04.07.2014