- (1.) HEARD.
(2.) INTRA Court appeal has been preferred questioning the legality of the order dated 27.03.2012 passed by Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3867/2012. The appellant/petitioner had appeared in Rajasthan Teachers Eligibility Test, 2011 conducted by the Board. In the Second Level Examination multiple choice questions were given. For Question No. 42, the appellant attempted answer 'D' and darkened answer 'D' and semi darkened answer 'B' of the same question. Thus, the appellant was not awarded marks for that question, as he darkened one answer and semi darkened another answer of the same question. In the Instructions, which were issued to the candidates, it has been specifically mentioned that candidate has to darken only one circle for each question and by providing example, it has been made clear that when question attempted by a candidate will be considered to be correct by disclosing five separate blocks. The OMR Sheet of the appellant was submitted before the Single Bench. Single Bench after looking into the answer sheet of the appellant has opined that the petitioner darkened and semi darkened two answers for Question No. 42, i.e. answer 'D' and answer 'B' respectively. Thus, he could not have been awarded marks for that question. No error has been committed by the respondents in not awarding the marks for Question No. 42. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that it is a case where the appellant intended to attempt answer 'D' only, which was the correct answer, as apparent from the level of darkening on the answer 'D' of Question No. 42. Semi darkening of answer 'B' could not have come in the way for awarding marks for that question to the appellant. He further submitted that it is a harsh case in which the appellant has lost the merit due to not awarding of marks in the aforesaid question only. In view of the instructions issued by the Board, the appellant could have attempted only one answer. He has attempted two answers of Question No. 42. Thus, he could not have been awarded marks. Darkening and semi darkening of answer is not of much consequence and fact remains that the appellant was in confusion and has attempted two answers for one question. Thus, he could not have been awarded marks for the answer pertaining to Question No. 42. Thus, no illegality has been committed by the Board in not awarding the marks for that question to the appellant. We find no ground to interfere in the order passed by the Single Bench. The intra Court appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed in limine. ;