Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Anjan Das vs Unknown on 6 June, 2016
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
06.6.16
skd
154
W. P. 5687 (W) of 2016
In the matter of: Anjan Das ... Petitioner
Mr. Bikramjit Dutta
Mr. G. C. Baidya ... For the Petitioner
Mr. Ratul Biswas ... For the Board
Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra ... For the State
Respondents
Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept on record. The instant writ application has been preferred, inter alia, praying for issuance of necessary directions upon the respondents to review the answer script of the petitioner pertaining to the Teacher Eligibility Test, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the TET).
Mr. Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement published by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (hereinafter referred to as the said Board), the petitioner applied for participating in the TET. The petitioner was found to be eligible for such participation and accordingly, an admit card was issued in his favour. The petitioner appeared in the TET but he could not emerge to be successful in the same.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner made an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Secretary of the said Board on 29th August, 2015 seeking information as regards the marks obtained and also praying for supply of the photocopy of the answer script in TET. Pursuant to the said representation, the Secretary of the said Board by a letter dated 22nd September, 2015 requested the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.500/- as the 2 requisite cost of production of attested digitized data of score and related matters pertaining to TET. In terms of the said letter dated 22nd September, 2015, the petitioner duly deposited the amount as demanded and thereafter by a memorandum dated 2nd December, 2015, the petitioner was supplied the attested copies of digitized data of OMR sheet of TET, 2012, the copy of question booklet vide code No. ESL and the copy of the answer keys with regard to question booklet code. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation to the Secretary of the said Board on 12th of December, 2016, inter alia, praying for review of the answer script and OMR sheet of TET. The said representation of the petitioner was not attended to and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Mr. Dutta further submits that though the Board has a statutory obligation to supply the answer script pertaining to the TET, the same was withheld without any reason and as a consequence thereof, the petitioner has not been able to ascertain as to whether the said Board has granted appropriate marks to the answers given by the petitioner to the questions as incorporated in the petitioner's question booklet. Had the petitioner's answer script been correctly assessed, the petitioner would have emerged to be successful in the TET.
Per contra, Mr. Biswas, learned advocate appearing for the Board submits that in response to the petitioner's application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Board requested the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.500/- for production of attested digitized data of the petitioner's score and related matter with regard to TET, 2012 and not the answer script. Accepting such request the petitioner deposited the costs and availed the attested copy of digitized data of OMR sheet, the copy of question booklet vide code 3 No. ESL and the answer keys and after receipt of the said documents, the petitioner cannot again pray for supply of the answer script. Furthermore, the TET was held in the year 2012 and the application under the Right to Information Act was made three years thereafter in 2015 and the answer scripts of the candidates were not retained for such a long period.
Drawing the attention of this Court to the digitized data as annexed to the writ application, Mr. Biswas, submits that the answers given by the petitioner to the questions incorporated in the question booklet supplied to the petitioner have been categorically disclosed and upon receipt of the same, the petitioner has not been able to show that any correct answer given by the petitioner was erroneously marked and that as such the prayer for review is not sustainable.
Drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph 7 of the writ application, Mr. Dutta replies that appropriate averments have been made detailing the infirmity in the marking process and as such the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I have considered the materials on record.
Accepting the request of the Secretary of the Board as contained in the memorandum dated 22nd September, 2015, the petitioner duly deposited the costs for production of attested digitized data of his score. The petitioner was accordingly supplied the digitized data of OMR, the question booklet and the answer keys. The answer given by the petitioner to the respective questions clearly stands disclosed in the digitized data of OMR. Through the averments, it has not been disclosed that though the petitioner gave 4 a correct answer to a particular question, he was not given appropriate marks. No provision towards review of the answers given by a candidate in TET has been brought to the notice of this Court. In the grounds taken in the writ application, there is no statement to the effect that the petitioner was not given correct marks for the answers and that as such no case has been made out in the writ application warranting issuance of any direction for review of the answer scripts of the petitioner pertaining to the TET of the year 2012.
In the said conspectus of facts and reasons, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for and accordingly, the writ application is dismissed.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to parties as expeditiously as possible.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)