Full Judgment
. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ------ L.P.A. No. 142 of 2015 -------- Nirmal Kumar Deva, S/o Late Gyaneshwar Saha, r/o Sahari, P.O. Arjunpur, P.S. Ranga, District- Sahebganj …..... …. …...... Appellant -Versus- 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Jharkhand Academic Council through its Secretary, Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, P.O & PS Namkum, District Ranchi 3.Jharkhand Academic Council through its Charman, Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi 4.The Chief Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Gov- ernment of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, PS -Jagan- nathpur, District-Ranchi …... ….. …... Respondents -------- For the the Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, G.P.V Mr. Renuka Trivedy, Advocate -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P BHATT ---- 05/ Dated:
06. h July, 2015 This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. - 6070 of 2014 dated 05.02.2015 whereby writ petition filed for cancellation of result published on 28.05.2013 and for constitution of a committee of expert teachers for proper evaluation of question and answer, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case is that on 18.11.2012 an advertisement was published in the daily newspaper namely ‘Prabhat Khabar’ , inviting applications for Teachers Eligibility Test -2012 (TET-2012) . The appellant appeared in the examination held on 20.04.2013. After publishing Model Answer Key the petitioner detected that the Model Answer Key was published with wrong answer and this fact was brought to the notice of respondent no.2 - Jharkhand Academic Council. Subsequently 2 nd Answer Key was published with some correction. The appellant was not qualified in this examination and submitted his representation before respondent no.- 2. The appellant did not get any response from Jharkhand Academic Council and, therefore, preferred W. P. (C) No. - 4568 of 2013 which was disposed of on 20.12.2013 directing the chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council to consider the appellant’s grievance and pass appropriate order. On the basis of that order/direction the appellant submitted his representation before the J.A.C., Ranchi (Respondent No.2) and the same has been rejected by order . dated 04.01.2014 (Annexure-10). Aggrieved by this order of respondent no. - 2, the appellant filed WP (C) No. - 6070 of 2014 which was dismissed by holding that Jharkhand Academic Council Ranchi after inviting objection from the candidates has taken action on the recommendation of the subject experts and final model answer key was prepared. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that the final model answers also contained wrong answer for question nos. 43, 123, 127, and 143.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant by referring various document annexed to this LPA submitted that the impugned order dated 05/02/2015 passed in WPC No. - 6070 of 2014, the learned writ court has not considered certain important facts, the order suffers from infirmity and merit on record.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant referred the Booklet of TET2012for class 6 to 8 (Annexure -6) and submitted that answers for Question No.43 as per 2nd answer key is option B whereas as per the test book correct answers are option A and B both. Appellant has marked option A. Similarly for Question No. - 123 as per 2 nd answer key are option A and D whereas as per the text book correct answers are option A and B. Appellant has marked option - B. The answer is corroborated by Question No. - 143 itself. So far as Question No. - 127 is concerned, the question itself is wrong as there is no specified/defined Khortha area. Same as Question No. - 123, 127, 143 have also correct answer both A and B.
5. It is further submitted that Respondent - State has filed Counter Affidavit in WPC No. - 6070/2014 wherein it is stated that the examination held on 26.04.2013 for class 6 to 8 level, the petitioner obtained 76 marks whereas qualifying marks was 78, and therefore the petitioner did not qualify. Jharkhand Academic Council vide notification no. - 22/2013 published on 28.04.2013 invited objection till 02.05.2013. The representations of the petitioner were received on 31.05.2013 and 05.06.2013, which were received after expiry of due date.
6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said notification was neither within the knowledge of the appellant nor it is clear that the said notification was prior to model answer key or subsequent to 2nd model answer key and, therefore, the appellant was not under mandatory obligation to submit his objection in pursuant to said notification to the respondents.
7. The appellant has grievance regarding answer key of some questions specifically question nos. - 43, 123, 127 and 143 as wrong/having improper . options/having correct option more than one. But, respondent Jharkhand Academic Council after inviting objection from the candidates had taken action on the recommendation of the subject expert. Learned Writ Court in order dated 05.02.2015 passed in WP(C) No. - 6070 of 2014 had rightly held that the final model answers were prepared on the opinion of the experts and contention of the petitioner could not be accepted that final model answers contained wrong answers for question no. - 43, 123, 127 and 143. Not only this, respondents have allotted full marks to all candidates where two answers were found correct and also where more than two answers were found correct.
8. Thus it appears that the Respondent Jharkhand Academic Council has only implemented the opinion of experts which cannot be considered as arbitrary or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India.
9. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the Learned Writ Court after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances has passed reasoned order and we do not find any infirmity with the findings recorded by the Hon’ble Writ Court. Therefore, we see no reason to alter the finding arrived by learned Single judge in WP (C) No. - 6070 of 2014 dated 05.02.2015. We, therefore upheld the said decision rendered by learned Single Judge.
10. Thus, there is no substance in this appeal. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, dismissed, accordingly. (Virender Singh, C.J.) (P.P. Bhatt, J.) Anu/SI