Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 128 (MEG)

George Kazi v. State of Meghalaya

2022-05-23

SANJIB BANERJEE, W.DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated May 4, 2022 by which the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been dismissed. 2. The grievance in the petition was that due to an erroneous answer to one of the questions in the Meghalaya Teachers Eligibility Test in Bengali language that the appellant had taken, the appellant secured 89 marks out of 150 and failed to meet the cut-off criterion of 90 marks to be found eligible. 3. It appears that the appellant had made representations to the respondent authorities on February 14, 2022 and again on March 17, 2022, complaining that the answer to question No. 147 in the Bengali paper was erroneous. It is the appellant's further contention that the mistake in the answer would be evident from another question found in the same paper. Question No. 147 in the Bengali paper pertained to the number of genders in the Bengali language. Four possible answers were mentioned and, in the objective type test, the correct answer had to be ticked or indicated. According to the appellant, the Bengali language has four genders and, as such, the appellant indicated 'Four' to be the correct answer. The appellant insists that such four genders are male, female, 'neutral' and 'common'. 4. The appellant places reliance on the appellant's answer to question No. 146 in the same paper. Such question sought an answer as to the gender pertaining to 'Rashtrapati'. The appellant answered that 'Rashtrapati' was a 'common' gender and the appellant's answer was found to be correct. Based on the correctness of the answer to question No. 146, the appellant says that it is obvious that there are four genders as 'common' would be considered as another gender in addition to the three traditional genders. 5. At the time that the appellant's writ petition was taken up for consideration, the respondent authorities produced a letter dated April 19, 2022 under which a communication of April 18, 2022 was apparently forwarded to Advocate for the appellant, dealing with the appellant's representations of February 14, 2022 and March 17, 2022. The stand of the respondent authorities was that the answer to question No. 147 as indicated in the key later put up on the website was the correct answer. The stand of the respondent authorities was that the answer to question No. 147 as indicated in the key later put up on the website was the correct answer. The appellant was also reminded that the appellant had furnished an undertaking to the effect that the appellant would abide by the finality of answers chosen by the authorities and would not question the same. Though no affidavits were called for by the writ court, based on the respondents' reply to the written representations made by the appellant, the petition was dismissed on the ground that the Court would not interfere in such a scenario nor would the Court go into the veracity of the answer. 6. The main basis of the appellant's challenge is that some grammar book that the appellant has relied on also indicates that Bengali language has four genders. The appellant contends that since the appellant was entitled to one mark for correctly answering question No. 147, the Court should now direct such additional mark to be awarded to the appellant for the appellant to have qualified in the eligibility test. 7. Though it is not unknown for the Court to sometimes find an answer to a particular question to be completely wrong, but that is when the answer is obviously wrong and no reasonable person would accept the authenticity of what is sought to be passed off as the correct answer. In certain situations, there may be two possible answers. In such a scenario, examiners are sometime lenient in marking both the possible answers as correct. However, the Court does not have the expertise to go into the veracity of the answer and in this case usurp the role of the examiner while in receipt of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution 8. In this case, it is possible that from a particular point of view the Bengali language may be seen to have four genders as answered by the appellant. However, the more traditional view may be that there are only three genders as the team of experts who set the papers and accepted the answers in this case have indicated. At any rate, whether it was a possible mistake or not, the situation was not unique to the appellant as the other examinees faced the same situation. However, the more traditional view may be that there are only three genders as the team of experts who set the papers and accepted the answers in this case have indicated. At any rate, whether it was a possible mistake or not, the situation was not unique to the appellant as the other examinees faced the same situation. Further, the appellant had undertaken, while taking the examination, that the answers indicated by the authorities would be deemed to be the appropriate answers and the same would not be questioned. In the light of the above, there does not appear to be any merit in the appellant's contention that the writ court ought to have interfered in the matter or played the role of a super-examiner to undo the opinion of the experts in the field and award the additional mark that would have allowed the appellant to meet the eligibility criteria. 9. The writ court took relevant considerations into account. The writ court found that the appellant's representations had been duly addressed in a reasonable manner by the respondent authorities. In the circumstances, the order impugned dated May 4, 2022 does not call for any interference. 10. WA No. 22 of 2022 is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.