BHARTI BHANDARI Vs. UTTARAKHAND SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the writ petitioner. Appellant filed the writ petition being aggrieved by not passing muster in the test known as 'Teacher Eligibility Test' which was necessary to become eligible to teach in an elementary school in a Government College in Uttarakhand, though the appellant appeared in the examination which was for 150 marks and the qualifying marks were 90 out of 150. Appellant initially got 88 marks. Thereafter, on revaluation she got 89 marks. The complaint of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that if the answer to question No. 78 had been correctly valued, appellant would have got qualifying marks of 90. The question involved was as follows: - -

(2.) We have heard Shri Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant as also Ms. Shivangi Gangwar, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant points out that this is not an obtrusively technical matter that the Court must pay undue obeisance to the view found by the experts. It relates to English grammar which can not be described as a technical matter where the general principle of the experts' perspective being supreme in a proceeding in judicial review prevails. He would draw our attention to an English book for Class -V, wherein he would point out that the sentence is given as "A dog is a_____animal." He also drew our attention to page 7 of Chapter 1 of the book known as "English Guide to Intermediate English" by Dr. R.P. Tewari and S.P. Jain, wherein reference is made under the heading "The Indefinite Articles". He would refer to paragraph 7 of page 7 of Chapter 1 of the said book, which reads as follows: - -