- (1.) After two years of pendency of a writ petition, the State's response is abysmally pathetic. All that the State has contended in reply was that agency that has conducted the test has given the key answers and the Court will not interfere with the same. The counsel refers to me judgment of this Court in CWP No.6602 of 2012 dated 03.02.2014 where the Court held that if experts had responded to challenges made to the question papers as either fake or the answers as incorrect, the Court will not over-run the expert's view of what was correct. I have no problem in accepting a proposition that the Court will not supplant an expert's view as regards the correct answers or that the questions were not vague. But in the first place, there must be an attempt of the State to respond to a plea that the key answers were wrong and that any of the questions were vague by making an objective appraisal of the grievance by entrusting the task of appraisal to some expert body and elicit its response. If such a response were to yield to a decision that key answers already given were correct or the grievance made by the petitioners were not well placed then there would be nothing for a Court to interfere. In this case after the petitioner's challenge, the State has done nothing except to state that the agency which was entrusted with the task of running the examination and their response that these answers were correct must be accepted. It would mean a brazen abdication of powers and a clear betrayal of trust in a State body that must fail to respond to the grievances in the manner that they deserve to be addressed.
(2.) I have gone through some of the questions. They are hardly technical but I am prepared to believe that there should be an expert view if the State thought it must prevail. I would have under the normal circumstances constitute an expert body to respond to this or would have relied on the State's response if it had made for any assessment by experts that the key answers were correct. I have already observed that the State has not done so. The case is of the year 2012 and the case pertains to the examinations held for teachers in the year 2011 and brought for hearing and if I were to put the matter before the experts, it would only bring further delay.
(3.) Under the extraordinary circumstances of the State inertia, I will substitute my own resources to what is possible. The petitioners in CWP No.2461 of 2012 have a grievance that they had responded to question No.13 with option No.1 while the key answer given is option No.4. The question provided for four options and the options are as follows:- 13. The gifted child:- (1) learns rapidly and easily (2) retains what he/she has heard or read without much rote drill (3) reasons things out (4) attends to stimuli for a shorter period. ;