Tamil Eligibility Score Short by Two Marks
A constable with nine years' service applies for departmental promotion to SI. In the Tamil Language Eligibility Test (100 marks, 40 to qualify), he scores 38. He claims two translation items were wrongly marked: he had used the Tamil legal glossary term for 'cognizable offence' and a correct official phrase for 'remand'. He studied in Tamil medium up to +2 and holds a B.A. Tamil degree. The notification says the language test is qualifying, its marks are not added to the main written ranking, and no revaluation is allowed; however, a review limited to totalling errors and answer-key discrepancies may be sought within seven days. He files his review on day nine. Main written exam call letters are scheduled in three days. The division office asks you to decide whether to forward his main-exam candidature, entertain the late review, and what proof to require.
1. Is the review maintainable? Apply the seven-day rule and identify what, if anything, can extend it.
Read the worked answer
The review is not maintainable as filed. The rule fixes seven days; he filed on day nine, two days late. A late filing can be condoned only if he shows a cause beyond his control - for example, the office refused to receive it on day seven, or postal delay evidenced by a receipt. His Tamil-medium schooling and B.A. Tamil are not a cause; they do not prove a totalling or answer-key error. If he alleges an answer-key discrepancy, he must identify the exact question numbers and the official glossary or syllabus provision, not merely assert that his answers were correct. Decision: reject as time-barred, but record the reasons and inform him in writing so that the rejection is not later attacked as arbitrary. The office should also note that the seven-day clock runs from the declared result date, not from the day he obtained a copy of the answer key.
2. Should he be allowed to appear in the main written examination pending review? Give a conditional decision.
Read the worked answer
Do not forward automatically. The language test is qualifying; until he is declared qualified, his main-exam candidature is not complete. Provisional admission is permissible only if the notification expressly allows it. If it does, take a written undertaking that admission is provisional, that he will not claim a right to ranking, and that his candidature will be cancelled if the review fails. If the notification is silent, withhold the call letter and tell him the remedy is to challenge the review rejection, not to sit the main exam. Forwarding him while unqualified creates a later dispute and may invalidate the select list. The deciding officer should record the notification clause relied on, because this is the point most likely to be litigated.
3. What evidence would make a genuine answer-key discrepancy claim credible, and what evidence is irrelevant?
Read the worked answer
Credible evidence: the published answer key, the official Tamil legal glossary, the prescribed syllabus, and the exact question numbers with the disputed words. Also useful: a copy of his answer sheet if the notification permits scrutiny, and a receipt showing when he filed. Irrelevant evidence: Tamil-medium schooling, a Tamil degree, general reputation, or an argument that 38 is 'close enough'. Those go to ability, not to whether the marking or totalling was wrong. A candidate who cannot point to a specific error is asking for revaluation, which is barred. The test is not whether he knows Tamil well, but whether the examiner applied the key correctly to the identified items.