S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) SEEKING quashing of order dated 04.01.2014 passed by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) IT is stated that pursuant to advertisement No. 95 of 2012 the petitioner appeared in Teachers Training Eligibility Test -2012 Examination in General Category in which booklet series -B was given to the petitioner. The TET -2012 Examination was held on 26.04.2013 and the result was published on 28.05.2013 which was displayed in the website of Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. The petitioner was declared not qualified as he obtained 89 marks out of 150 marks. The qualifying marks for the General Category candidate in the said examination was 90 marks. When the answer key was published by Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi in the website, it was found that the answer for question Nos. 41 and 100 were not correct. The petitioner made representation and after the objections of the candidates were received, a modified answer key was published by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi which also contained wrong answers for question Nos. 41 and 100 and accordingly, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3534 of 2013 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.12.2013 directing the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi to consider the grievance of the petitioner and to pass appropriate order. It was further ordered that if in the opinion of JAC or the Board of Experts, as may be constituted for that purpose, more than one answers to any question are found correct, the JAC shall review the answer sheet of the petitioner and other similarly aggrieved candidates. Pursuant to direction by this Court, the representation of the petitioner was considered and by the impugned order dated 04.01.2014 the same has been rejected. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi stating that the representation of the petitioner was rejected because correct answers were identified by the experts after receiving objections from the candidates. Since the answers were selected on the opinion of the subject expert, there is no illegality or irregularity in evaluation. The OMR sheets of the candidates have been evaluated on the basis of the final model answers. It is stated that in cases where two answers for one question were found correct, both the answers were accepted as correct and full marks have been allotted for such answers. And, in those cases where more than two answers have been found correct, the candidates have been given full marks for that question. In this manner, uniformity has been maintained in evaluation of OMR sheets of all the examinees and there was no arbitrariness or discrimination in evaluation of OMR answer sheets.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.;