MANJU DEVI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by this petition seeks for a direction to the respondent No. 2 to allot bonus marks to the petitioner, as provided in Rule 2.16 (5) of the C.G. Pre B.Ed. Entrance Examination, 2009, because the question paper provided to the petitioner was incomplete. THE petitioner further seeks a writ oimandamus declaring the petitioner as eligible to take part in counselling.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner submitted her application form for appearing in the Pre B.Ed. Test, 2009, conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (for short 'the Board'). Accordingly, she appeared in the examination vide admit card (Annexure P-1) on the Roll Number 16061274. As per the scheme of examination, there should be 100 questions in the booklet. Clause 4 of the instructions to candidates, contained on the top of the booklet, provides that "after opening the seal, ensure that the Question Booklet contains total No. of pages as mentioned above and printing of all the 100 questions is proper. If any discrepancy is found, please inform the invigilator and get the correct booklet". On opening the booklet (Annexure P-3), according to the petitioner, she found that the question Nos. 33 to 62 were missing in the booklet. The petitioner immediately reported the matter to the invigilator that in the booklet supplied to her, question Nos. 33 to 62 were not printed. There were some more candidates who had also made similar complains of the identical discrepancy to the invigilator. Though, it was mentioned in the instruction to inform the invigilator about discrepancy in the booklet and get the correct booklet, but even after reporting the matter, as aforesaid, the invigilator neither took proper steps nor provided correct booklet. However, the petitioner was asked to carry on solving the questions with the incomplete booklet. LEARNED Counsel would submit, it is true that the petitioner did not file any written complaint after the examination, till declaration of the result but the authorities of the Board were well aware of the matter as the discrepancies in the booklets were highlighted in the newspaper on 4-5-2009 (Annexure P-4), also.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/Center Superintendent would submit that the petitioner and some other candidates made complaint about incomplete booklets beyond the stipulated time of 15 minutes, prescribed for the purpose. As per the categorical instructions of the Board, after distribution of the booklets, remaining booklets were to be kept in a sealed cover within 30 minutes of the starting of the examination. The respondent No. 3, in the capacity of Centre Superintendent informed the respondent No. 2/Board about discrepancies in booklets (Annexures R-3/4, R-3/5 and R-3/6).