Livid with the submission that D Moorthy, who signed the expert opinion as an IIT professor, was in fact a retired teacher from Kendriya Vidyalaya in IIT, Justice S M Subramaniam assailed the board for knowingly filing a bogus expert opinion obtained by way of impersonation. “the officials of TNUSRB are certainly responsible and accountable for submission of such an unauthenticated document before the High Court,” the judge said.

The case relates to a grade-II constable S Arunachalam moving the court that he lost half a mark due to wrong key answer, which resulted in him losing out on being recruited as Sub-Inspector (Fingerprint). As the question was technical, the court had directed TNUSRB to obtain expert opinion. That is when the board submitted the opinion of D Moorthy, identifying him as a mathematics professor at IIT-M. Based on this, the court dismissed his plea.

But Arunachalam approached again stating that the expert opinion was fake, pointing out that there was no professor named D Moorthy at IIT-M.

When the TNUSRB submitted that G V Kumar, a consultant psychiatrist, and Moorthy had conspired to give a false identity to cheat the board for monetary claim and publicity, the judge said it was possible that such an opinion was “knowingly and intentionally” obtained and submitted to get a favourable order. “This court is of an undoubted opinion that the TNUSRB had not only misguided the High Court but also filed a bogus expert opinion resulted in the dismissal of the petition,” the judge said.

Moorthy submitted an affidavit that he had not knowledge that his opinion was meant to be submitted to the court and that he had sent a copy of the answer following a request by Kumar, who was his visiting faculty at ICE, University of Madras.

“In the absence of any such official letter from TNUSRB and a reply from IIT Madras, the very sanctity of the expert opinion filed by TNUSRB before this court is of doubtful nature. Under what authority G V Kumar is engaged as a consultant with the board and what are the nature of duties and responsibilities performed by him to the board are also not explained,” the court observed.

The case has been posted for further hearing to April 5.