Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 4]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Savita Sharma vs State Of H.P. And Another on 29 April, 2019

Bench: Surya Kant, Sandeep Sharma

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                                             CWP No. 883 of 2019
                                           Decided on: 29.4.2019
     _____________________________________________________________




                                                                    .
     Savita Sharma                                    ....Petitioner





                                          Versus





     State of H.P. and another                      ...Respondents
     _____________________________________________________________
     Coram
     Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice
     Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge





     Whether approved for reporting1?
     _____________________________________________________________
     For the petitioner     Mr. Ajay Shandil, Advocate.

     For the respondents:   Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Mr. Ashwani
                  r         Sharma and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur,

                            Additional Advocate Generals with
                            Ms. Divya Sood, Deputy Advocate
                            General and Mr. Manoj Bagga,
                            Assistant Advocate General, for
                            respondent No.1/State.


                            Mr. Vir Bahadur Verma, Advocate, for
                            respondent No.2.
     _____________________________________________________________
     Surya Kant, Chief Justice (Oral)

The petitioner appeared in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) of Arts conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, Dharamshala, on 8.9.2018. The result has been declared and according to the petitioner, she had answered question Nos. 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 129, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137 and 145 correctly, but due to anomaly in the answer key, her answers have not been correctly evaluated, depriving her the due marks.

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? .

::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2019 21:58:33 :::HCHP -2-

2. It goes without saying that such like issues are to be examined by an Expert Committee, which may have been constituted by the Board to consider the representations, if .

any, received from the candidates against the answer key. The petitioner is stated to have already represented the Board. In any case, we grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to represent the Board alongwith supporting material with reference to question Nos. 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 129, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137 & 145 and let such representation be placed before the Expert Committee for an appropriate decision. The Expert Committee will take its decision within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any.

Copy Dasti.

(Surya Kant) Chief Justice (Sandeep Sharma) Judge April 29, 2019 (Vikrant/yashwant) ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2019 21:58:33 :::HCHP