Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 98 (JHR)

Raghu Nath Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

2015-01-22

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : Seeking quashing of order dated 04.01.2014 passed by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. It is stated that pursuant to advertisement no. 95 of 2012 the petitioner appeared in Teachers Training Eligibility Test 2012 Examination in General Category in which booklet series B was given to the petitioner. The TET2012 Examination was held on 26.04.2013 and the result was published on 28.05.2013 which was displayed in the website of Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. The petitioner was declared not qualified as he obtained 89 marks out of 150 marks. The qualifying marks for the General Category candidate in the said examination was 90 marks. When the answer key was published by Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi in the website, it was found that the answer for question nos. 41 and 100 were not correct. The petitioner made representation and after the objections of the candidates were received, a modified answer key was published by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi which also contained wrong answers for question nos. 41 and 100 and accordingly, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3534 of 2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.12.2013 directing the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi to consider the grievance of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order. It was further ordered that if in the opinion of JAC or the Board of Experts, as may be constituted for that purpose, more than one answers to any question are found correct, the JAC shall review the answer sheet of the petitioner and other similarly aggrieved candidates. Pursuant to direction by this Court, the representation of the petitioner was considered and by the impugned order dated 04.01.2014 the same has been rejected. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi stating that the representation of the petitioner was rejected because correct answers were identified by the experts after receiving objections from the candidates. Since the answers were selected on the opinion of the subject expert, there is no illegality or irregularity in evaluation. The OMR sheets of the candidates have been evaluated on the basis of the final model answers. It is stated that in cases where two answers for one question were found correct, both the answers were accepted as correct and full marks have been allotted for such answers. The OMR sheets of the candidates have been evaluated on the basis of the final model answers. It is stated that in cases where two answers for one question were found correct, both the answers were accepted as correct and full marks have been allotted for such answers. And, in those cases where more than two answers have been found correct, the candidates have been given full marks for that question. In this manner, uniformity has been maintained in evaluation of OMR sheets of all the examinees and there was no arbitrariness or discrimination in evaluation of OMR answer sheets. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the question paper in booklet series-B and the study material submits that, it is apparent that correct answer for question no. 41 should be option 'A' whereas, in the modified model answer in booklet series-B option 'B' has been indicated as correct answer. Similarly, for question no. 100 the correct answer would be option 'B' whereas, in the modified model answer, option 'A' in booklet series-B has been marked as correct answer. It is stated that the petitioner opted for correct answers, that is, answer 'A' for question no. 41 and answer 'B' for question no. 100 and thus, he should have been granted two more marks which would have qualified the petitioner. It is further submitted that, vide order dated 19.12.2013 the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi was directed to constitute Board of Experts for examining the grievance of the petitioner however, the same has not been done and therefore, the impugned order dated 04.01.2014 is liable to be quashed. 6. As against the above, Mr. Md. Sohail Anwar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi submits that, the objections were examined by the experts and the final model answers were prepared by them. Reiterating the stand in counter-affidavit it is stated that in cases where two answers for one question were found correct, both the answers were accepted as correct and full marks were alloted to such answers. In those cases, where more than two answers were found correct, the candidates were given full marks for that question and thus, uniformity was maintained and there was no arbitrariness and discrimination in evaluation of OMR sheets. 7. In those cases, where more than two answers were found correct, the candidates were given full marks for that question and thus, uniformity was maintained and there was no arbitrariness and discrimination in evaluation of OMR sheets. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. From the materials brought on record, it is apparent that JAC, Ranchi after inviting objections from the candidates, has taken action on the recommendation/opinion of the subject experts. The final model answers were prepared on the opinion of the experts and therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that the final model answers also contained wrong answers for question nos. 41 and 100. From the course material and the question booklet, copies of which have been brought on record, it does not appear that the answers selected by the petitioner, were the correct answers for question nos. 41 and 100. In the counter-affidavit, it has been disclosed that in cases where two answers were found correct, full marks were allotted for both answers and where more than two answers were found correct, full marks were given to all the candidates. In a somewhat similar case, in “Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta”, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, “Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a Key Answer or any ambiguity in a question sought in the Examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question would be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it”. In the present case, the Model Answer Key was revised on the recommendation of the experts and a modified Answer Key was published. I find no infirmity in the decision of the respondent-JAC. In so far as, contention that the JAC was required to constitute Board of Experts, I find that in order dated 19.12.2013 this Court has observed that “if in the opinion of JAC or the Board of Experts, as may be constituted for that purpose, more than one answer to any question is found correct, Jharkhand Academic Council shall review the answer sheets of the petitioner”. It is thus clear that there was no mandatory direction by this Court to constitute Board of Experts. It is thus clear that there was no mandatory direction by this Court to constitute Board of Experts. After considering the representation of the petitioner, the same has been rejected by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi vide order dated 04.01.2014. The study material does not show that the options for question nos. 41 and 100 have been correctly opted by the petitioner. 9. I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 04.01.2014 and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.