(Order of the Court was made by M.DHANDAPANI,J.) The writ appeal is filed against the order dated 08.10.2012 in W.P.(MD) No.9886 of 2012.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
3.The respondent issued a Notification dated 27.02.2012 for the post of Lecturers for Government Polytechnic College. Accordingly, hall ticket was issued to the appellant for attending the examination and after conducting the examination, the respondent published the key answer and issued a tentative list and called for certificate verification. The appellant's name was in the 16th place of the tentative list. In the meanwhile, on 16.07.2012, the appellant made a representation to the respondent for providing three marks for question nos.27, 58 and 83, however, the respondent did not award the marks and aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9886 of 2012 before this Court.
4.The learned Single Judge of this Court after considering the appellant's claim elaborately and after obtaining the Expert's opinion dismissed the writ petition on 08.10.2012. The relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:
14.The experts have referred to a text book known as Introduction to Solid State Physics Seventh Edition, authored by Charles Kittel, wherein also similar equation is given. When it was pointed out to the experts that option (A) is correct, provided when it refers to 'linear medis', the experts have stated that the framing of the question itself is wrong. The experts explained to the Court that if the question is with reference to free space then the correct answer shall , , be D = EE If the question refers to linear media (non free space), , , then the correct answer would be D = EE. The experts have now explained to the Court that in view of the fact that the question does not make a specific mention as to whether it relates to linear media or free space, the question is defective and the same should be omitted from valuation. The paper setter has omitted the said question from valuation. In view of the same, I do not find any reason to interfere with the opinion of the paper setter as well as the experts. Thus, I hold that omission of Question No.83, from valuation is also correct.
5.The learned Single Judge has held that the question does not make a specific mention as to whether it relates to linear media or free space. The question is defective and the same should be omitted from the valuation. The paper setter has omitted the said question from valuation and considering the above, the writ petition has been dismissed.
6.This Court feels that it is not possible to re-agitate the matter after a lapse of nearly five years as the posts would have already been filled up. Hence, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.