Jharkhand High Court
Guddi Kumari And Ors vs Jharkhand Academic Council on 8 July, 2015
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No. 4601 of 2013
----
1.Guddi Kumari
2.Sanjay Kumar Singh
3.Santosh Kumar Gupta
4.Ekramul Haque
5.Md. Akbal Ansari
6.Ashok Kumar Mandal ... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi through its Chairman, Gyandeep Parishar, Barganwa, Namkum, Ranchi
3.The Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi through its Secretary, Ranchi Gyandeep Parishar, Barganwa, Namkum, Ranchi
4.The Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi through its Joint Secretary, Gyandeep Parishar, Barganwa, Namkum, Ranchi
5.The Examnation Controller, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, Gyandeep Parishar, Barganwa, Namkum, Ranchi ... ... Respondents
----
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
----
For the Petitioners :M/s Ritu Kumar, S.B.Deo, Vikash Kumar & M.K.Sah.
For the Respondents :M/s. M.S.Anwar, Sr.Advocate, A.Ahmad & Shadab Bin Haque.
----
04- 08.07.2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners sought declaration of results of Teachers' Eligibility Test for appointment as Assistant Teachers and Urdu Teachers respectively for class 6 to 8 asserting that their answers have been correctly made as per NCERT book though not correctly evaluated by the Jharkhand Academic Council. Learned counsel for the petitioners has laboured to emphasis the point by referring to few of the answers to Social Study paper i.e. answer nos.62,79 and 97, which according to her, has been found to contain more than one correct answers by the report of NCERT communicated to the petitioner no.3, vide letter dated 21.5.2014 (annexed in the rejoinder). It is submitted that similar is the case of other petitioners also in different subjects where answers are not correct to the questions posed or have more than one answers to the question. If the petitioners have answered one question, which is the correct answer, the respondent-JAC has not accepted it as correct and not evaluated it correctly. Therefore, the evaluation process undertaken by the Examining Body is flawed and interference is required in such matters by this Court. 2. It is the case of the respondent-JAC that after publication of the result on 28.5.2013 of the TET, objections were invited from the aggrieved candidates in respect of key answer-sheet and it was placed before the Body of Expert to scrutinize as to whether any of the answers to the question in TET test were not correct and needed reevaluation as per the correct answer. It is submitted that as per the opinion of the expert thereafter several such incorrect answers were properly evaluated and scrutinized. Thereafter, only the final results were published taking into account the opinion of the expert. Petitioners have obtained less than the qualifying marks, therefore, their result could not be published. It is submitted that petitioners reliance upon the opinion of the NCERT, cannot be taken as a final say in the matter as the Examining Body has a Body of Expert, who have duly applied their mind to the objections before final result has been prepared by JAC. It is further submitted that a challenge on the same ground earlier before this Court in the case of Kartik Chandra Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand, WP(C) No.212 of 2014 has been negatived by the learned Single Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 22.7.2014, which has been upheld in Letters Patent Appeal no.278 of 2014 rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 14.5.2015. Learned senior counsel for the respondent-JAC submits that therefore no interference may be made in the result of TET finally published on 28.5.2013 itself.
Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, in the light of the materials on record, it is useful to remind that the evaluation of exam is in the domain of expert and courts are advised to exercise restraint in interfering in the same unless it is found to be vitiated by mala fide, perversity or blatant arbitrariness.
In the instant case, as is found, the Examining Body has a method for inviting objections in respect of the key answers to the Teachers' Eligibility Test and upon scrutiny by the Body of expert, the results have 3. been published on 28.5.2013 as per their opinion. In such circumstances, reliance of the petitioners on one or other report should not be made the basis to question the decision of the expert who have come to a final decision on the correct answers of the questions prescribed under the Teachers' Eligibility Test. It further appears that challenge to such an evaluation on the same ground has earlier been negatived by the learned Single Judge of this Court and upheld by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kartik Chandra Mahto (supra). Keeping into account all facts and the reasons discussed herein-above, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter asking for declaration of the results of the petitioners for the TET test.
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. I.A.No.3439 of 2015 also stands closed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. ) Pandey