CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. - (1.) SEEKING a direction for declaration of his result for the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET2012), the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
(2.) IT is stated that, pursuant to advertisement dated 21.12.2012 for Teachers Eligibility Test (TET2012), the petitioner appeared in the examination held on 26.04.2013. After the Key Answers were published on website by the Jharkhand Academic Council, the petitioner detected that many answers were wrong and such defects were brought to the notice of the respondentJharkhand Academic Council. Subsequently, the Jharkhand Academic Council revised and modified the Answer Key and issued fresh answer on the website. From the modified Answer Key, it appears that the respondentJharkhand Academic Council has awarded further marks for question nos.73, 89, 114 and 115. The petitioner brought to the attention of the respondentJharkhand Academic Council question nos.62, 68 and 97 for which also, more than one options were right. The result for Teachers Eligibility Test (TET2012) was published on 28.05.2012 in which, the petitioner is shown to have obtained 76 marks. Had the respondentJharkhand Academic Council given full marks to question nos.62, 68 and 97, the petitioner would have qualified in Teachers Eligibility Test (TET2012).
(3.) A counteraffidavit has been filed by the respondentJharkhand Academic Council stating that the petitioner obtained 77 marks out of 150 marks and thus, he did not qualify under the MBC category for which, cutoff marks was 78 marks. After the examination was held on 26.04.2013, the model answers were uploaded in the website and objections were invited. After receipt of the objections, the objections were placed before the subject experts/committee of experts, who prepared the model answers, which were again uploaded by the Jharkhand Academic Council. The OMR sheets have been evaluated on the basis of final model answers. It is denied that the petitioner filed objection with respect to question nos.62, 68 and 97 within the last date prescribed. The representation of the petitioner does not contain any evidence establishing wrong answers to those questions. The statement made with respect to Annexure 5 has been denied and it has been clarified that it relates to another candidate namely, Mahboob Alam. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondentJharkhand Academic Council has admitted that there were more than one answers for atleast four questions however, with respect to question nos.62, 68, 97, the respondentJharkhand Academic Council has not taken any decision. The petitioner obtained 77 marks and had full marks for any one of the question nos.62, 68 and 97 been given, the petitioner would have qualified Teachers Eligibility Test (TET2012).;