JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Khanikar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Deka, learned standing counsel, Education (Secondary) Department, appearing for all the respondents. 2. An advertisement was issued on 21.12.2013 by the respondent No.4 for holding Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET), 2013 for Post-Graduate Teachers under Secondary Education, Assam. The structure and content of the test as notified in the advertisement goes to show that the examination shall be for 200 marks of 200 Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) each one of them carrying equal mark. There will be two papers. Paper-I, which is common for all the candidates, will have 100 marks. Paper-II, which is also for 100 marks, will have three options, namely, Options-A, B and C. The candidate can choose only one option and the choice has to be mentioned in the application form in respect of Paper-II. 3. Options-A, B and C corresponds to (i) Commerce, (ii) Science and (iii) General Studies and Current Affairs, respectively, and the petitioner had chosen Option-B at the time of submitting his application in response to the said advertisement. 4. The TET Examination was held on 08.02.2014 for which an Admit Card was issued to the petitioner. 5. In Paper-II with Option-B, there are four subjects, namely, Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Mathematics, and a candidate was required to choose two subjects out of four. The subjects individually carry 50 marks each. The petitioner gave his option for Chemistry and Mathematics. 6. It is pleaded by the petitioner that, inadvertently, the petitioner gave three/ four answers also on the subject of Physics and after realizing the mistake, stopped and then went on to answer the questions in respect of Chemistry and Mathematics. The petitioner was confident that he would clear the examination but when the result was declared on 24.02.2014, his name was not reflected in the panel of selected candidates. On enquiries being made, petitioner was given to understand that the answer script of the petitioner was not evaluated because of marking of some answers in a non-selected subject of Paper-II. 7. Mr. On enquiries being made, petitioner was given to understand that the answer script of the petitioner was not evaluated because of marking of some answers in a non-selected subject of Paper-II. 7. Mr. Khanikar has submitted that the petitioner had obtained, by taking recourse to Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, “RTI Act”), copy of the answer scripts and the answer-key and, on a comparison of answers given by the petitioner with the answer-key, it becomes apparent that the petitioner had secured 41 and 29 marks, in Mathematics and Chemistry, respectively, totalling 70 marks out of 100 against the qualifying mark of 60. In Paper-I also, according to him, the petitioner had secured 68 marks against the qualifying mark of 60. It is submitted by him that merely because the petitioner had inadvertently answered two or three questions in the paper in which he had not exercised the option, the same ought not to have prompted the authorities not to examine the answer scripts, when, admittedly, there is no doubt that the petitioner had exercised his option in respect of Chemistry and Mathematics. 8. Mr. Deka, on the basis of the instructions received, has submitted that as the petitioner had touched three subjects instead of two, he had been disqualified. By producing the Test Booklet, it is pointed out by Mr. Deka that it is clearly written that a candidate has to answer only two parts out of four parts and any candidate answering more than two parts will be disqualified. He, accordingly, submits that no illegality was committed while disqualifying the petitioner. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 10. From the answer script annexed as Annexure-D/2 by the petitioner in respect of Paper-II, it is apparent that the petitioner had opted for the subjects of Chemistry and Mathematics. There is no manner of doubt on the choice of his options. However, it appears from the said answer script that the petitioner had also circled three questions out of 50 in the subject of Physics. 11. The Test Booklet provides for disqualification of any candidate answering more than two parts. There is no manner of doubt on the choice of his options. However, it appears from the said answer script that the petitioner had also circled three questions out of 50 in the subject of Physics. 11. The Test Booklet provides for disqualification of any candidate answering more than two parts. However, one must not overlook the fact that there is always some sort of pressure, call it examination blues, at the time of examination and a mistake of the kind that was made by the petitioner is possible to have been made. 12. If there is doubt with regard to choice exercised and the candidate had attempted to answer questions in respect of three subjects with the objective of taking a chance, certainly the candidature of such a candidate is liable for rejection in terms of the instructions provided in the Test Booklet. But the rigour of the stipulation ought not to be applied to disqualify the candidature of the candidate when there is no dispute with regard to the choice exercised, but where a candidate, due to inadvertence and/or mistake also answers two or three questions for which he had not exercised his option. If the above interpretation is given, the same will continue to sub-serve the purpose for which the clause in question had been inserted and at the same time, prevent injustice to candidates, who may have unwittingly made a mistake of answering two/three questions in respect of a subject for which no option was exercised. Such a mistake cannot be construed to be an unfair practice in an examination hall and it does not impair the purity of the examination process. Ultimately, the object of an examination is to test the merit of the candidate. 13. In the background of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that this Court ought to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.3, i.e. the Mission Director, Rastriya Madhyamik Siksha Abhijan, Assam, to evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioner for Paper-I as well as Paper-II for the subjects of Chemistry and Mathematics and to declare the result of the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 14. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 14. I hasten to add that I have expressed no opinion on the claim of the petitioner with regards to the marks the petitioner thinks he had scored. The reference to the marks was only to make the narration complete. 15. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands allowed.