Madras High Court
WA/404/2024 of The University of Madras Vs Pa. Moorthy IPS on 8 September 2026
W.A.NO.404 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.09.2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
W.A.NO.404 OF 2024
AND
CMP NO.2717 OF 2024
1.The University of Madras
Represented by its Registrar
Centenary Building
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2.The Controller of Examinations
University of Madras
Centenary Building
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
…
Appellants
Vs.
Dr.Pa.Moorthy, IPS
…
Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 08.07.2022 passed in W.P.No.11821
of 2022.
For Appellants
:
Mr.T.Pushkin Rajkumar
for Mr.Stanley Hebzon Singh
(Change of vakalat not filed)
For Respondent :
Mr.M.Ravi
( Uploaded on: 11/09/2026 01:12:31 pm )
W.A.NO.404 OF 2024
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.) The University of Madras preferred the present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the writ order dated 08.07.2022 passed in W.P.No.11821 of 2022.
2. The respondent is an I.P.S. Officer admitted in M.L. Degree through private study during the academic year 2018-2019. He appeared for the examination and his Registration Number was ML18009. Admittedly, the respondent scored 59.91 percentage of marks. He filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the appellants to award 60% marks to secure First Class. The writ Court allowed the writ petition by rounding off the marks awarded by the University as 60% and consequently, conferred First Class. The marks was rounded off by the writ Court relying on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwari and Others, reported in (2005) 2 SCC
10.
3. This Court has to examine whether application of law laid down in the case of Pawan Kumar’s case cited supra, can be relied
( Uploaded on: 11/09/2026 01:12:31 pm )
W.A.NO.404 OF 2024
upon for granting the relief. Secondly, whether the High Court, in exercise of the powers of judicial review, can enhance the marks awarded by the University in M.L. Course.
4. Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent is an I.P.S. Officer and scored 59.91 marks. Enhancement of marks by rounding off by the writ court would only result in grant of First Class to the respondent, which would not cause any prejudice to any of the candidates.
5. The learned counsel for the University would submit that the Court rounding off the marks is beyond the scope since the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination Board and Others Vs. Sarit Chakraborty and Others, reported in (2015) 13 SCC 668, held as follows: “12.There are express guidelines issued by the Board for governing the process of admission in engineering colleges. There is no guideline for permitting the principle of rounding off of marks in order to be made eligible to appear for counselling. In the absence of such a guideline in either the Brochure issued by the Board or in
( Uploaded on: 11/09/2026 01:12:31 pm )
W.A.NO.404 OF 2024
the AICTE Regulations, we are of the considered opinion that the rounding off of marks could not be permissible. The High Court ought not to have exercised such discretion in the light of the express and clear guidelines to the contrary.”
6. He would rely on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Y.John Edward Vs. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 12019, wherein the case of Pawan Kumar’s case cited supra was distinguished as follows: “10. . . . In so far as the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh -vs- Pavan kumar Tiwari [(2005) 2 SCC 10] is concerned, the Court had merely worked out the number of posts that had to be allocated in terms of the percentage of reservation for the various category, viz., General, Scheduled Caste, Other Backward Class and Scheduled Tribes and the same does not at all relate to awarding marks as in this case.”
7. This Court is of the considered view that evaluation of answer sheet, awarding of marks are the job of the domain expert. It is for
( Uploaded on: 11/09/2026 01:12:31 pm )
W.A.NO.404 OF 2024
the Examiners / Professors to evaluate the answer sheets and award marks by following the guidelines issued by the University. Courts can never substitute its views in order to enhance or round off the marks which would fall beyond the realm of the powers of the judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such matters relating to the evaluation of answer sheets and awarding of marks, the High Court is expected to exercise restraint. In the event of rounding off or enhancement of marks, would cause prejudice to other candidates, who participated in the examination and would also amount to altering the scheme of the examination. That apart, it will open a Pandora’s box, as several such similarly placed candidates, who have not secured First Class may also prefer writ petitions seeking similar relief. In the event of considering such cases, the entire scheme of the examination would be brought to a standstill and the consequences and repercussions will be serious.
8. In the world of competition, even a difference of 0.01 marks can make a lot of difference in matters of selection, appointment, admission, etc. Therefore, Courts are not expected to take any lenient view or show misplaced sympathy by awarding additional marks or rounding off marks in a casual manner. The implications, repercussions and likelihood
( Uploaded on: 11/09/2026 01:12:31 pm )
W.A.NO.404 OF 2024
of causing prejudice to other candidates are be taken into consideration before granting such relief. In the present case, the respondent is an I.P.S. Officer who was admitted to the M.L. Course and scored 59.91 marks. That being the factum, it is unnecessary for the writ Court to entertain the writ petition to round off the marks as prayed for.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the writ order cannot be sustained. Consequently, writ order dated 08.07.2022 passed in W.P.No.11821 of 2022 stands set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. [S.M.S., J.] [K.G.R., J.]
08.09.2026 Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes TK
( Uploaded on: 11/09/2026 01:12:31 pm )
W.A.NO.404 OF 2024
To
1. The Registrar University of Madras Centenary Building Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2. The Controller of Examinations University of Madras Centenary Building Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
( Uploaded on: 11/09/2026 01:12:31 pm )
W.A.NO.404 OF 2024
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. TK W.A.NO.404 OF 2024 08.09.2026
( Uploaded on: 11/09/2026 01:12:31 pm )