CHENNAI : Finding flaw in obtaining an expert opinion in the matter of correctness of an answer given by an aspirant for the post of SI in the examination and also finding flaw in the appointment of the person, who had obtained the expert opinion, and smelling something rotten, the Madras High Court has directed the IG and member-secretary of the Uniformed Services Recruitment Board to file a detailed affidavit setting out facts and circumstances before the court by Tuesday.
Justice SM Subramaniam gave the direction when a writ petition from S Arunachalam was brought to his notice again on Monday. Earlier on March 13, holding that the court was not an expert body and it could not ascertain the genuineness of the answer to a particular question relating to mathematics and accepting the correct answer of an expert in this field, the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition from Arunachalam, who had taken the test for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Finger Print).
Originally, he had moved the High Court for a direction to the Uniformed Services Recruitment Board to consider and dispose of his representation dated February 16 last and include his name in the list of provisionally selected candidates under the departmental quota for the Sub-Inspector of Police (Finger Print) - 2018 recruitment.
To ascertain the genuineness of the answer, the judge had directed the Board to produce an expert opinion and accordingly, Dr D Murthi, Professor, Department of Mathematics, IIT-Madras submitted his opinion and as per his opinion, the petitioner had not given the correct answer.
Since the petitioner had not written the correct answer, the relief that he had sought in the petition could not be granted, the judge said and dismissed it on March 13 last. But, on Monday, alleging that no such expert (Dr Murthi) ever worked in the IIT, petitioner’s counsel raised the issue before the judge again. The IIT management also vouched for his claim. It was stated that one GV Kumar, an employee in the Board, was assigned the job of obtaining expert opinion, which was now alleged to be bogus by the petitioner’s counsel.