Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1529 (JHR)

Swarup Kumar Das v. Jharkhand Academic Council

2015-12-08

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
Order : Seeking a direction upon the respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council to recalculate the marks of the petitioner after correcting award of marks for question nos. 62, 68 and 97 in Series-C Group, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Pursuant to advertisement no. 95 of 2012 issued on 18.11.2012 in the daily newspaper namely, “Prabhat Khabar” inviting applications for Teachers Eligibility Test-2012 (TET-2012), the petitioner submitted his application and appeared in the examination held on 26.04.2013. In the said examination the petitioner was awarded 75 marks out of 150 marks. On enquiry, the petitioner detected that though he selected correct answers/options for question nos. 62, 68 and 97 in Series-C Booklet, he was not awarded marks for those three questions. The petitioner made representation to the respondent-authority however, the respondent-authority did not rectify the marks awarded to the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, for question nos. 62, 68 and 97 in Booklet Series-C three answers for each question were correct according to N.C.E.R.T book and the petitioner has chosen one of the correct answers for question nos. 62, 68 and 97 however, the respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council has chosen only one option as correct answer for all these questions. Referring to the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 5291 of 2013, the learned counsel submits that, in an identical case this Court directed the respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council to review the answer sheet if more than one answer to any question is found to be correct. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council submits that, the Model Answers were uploaded on the website of the Jharkhand Academic Council and through notification dated 28.04.2013, objections were invited from the candidates. The objections thus received were examined by the subject experts/committee of experts and on their recommendation Revised Model Answers were prepared and uploaded on the website of the Jharkhand Academic Council. The learned counsel submits that, the petitioner has failed to disclose that he submitted his objections to question nos. 62, 68 and 97 by the due date that is, 02.05.2013 and therefore, no interference is required in the matter. 5. Considering the averments in the writ petition I am of the opinion that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 62, 68 and 97 by the due date that is, 02.05.2013 and therefore, no interference is required in the matter. 5. Considering the averments in the writ petition I am of the opinion that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that he has selected one of the right options from three correct answers for question nos. 62, 68 and 97 cannot be ascertained in the present proceeding. The petitioner himself has not disclosed the options for the above mentioned questions which he allegedly opted. The petitioner has also failed to assert which are the correct three answers for question nos. 62, 68 and 97 in Booklet Series-C. In his representation dated 04.06.2013 also the petitioner has not disclosed the aforesaid facts. Moreover, the representation of the petitioner was filed after the due date that is, 02.05.2013. The learned counsel for the respondent referring to order passed in L.P.A. No. 142 of 2015 submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that the respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council has only implemented the opinion of experts which cannot be considered arbitrary or discriminatory. 6. Considering the aforesaid fact, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.