ARADHANA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Patel, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondents nos. 1 to 4.

(2.) According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner being fully eligible and qualified, filled On-line application for Teachers Eligibility Test Examination-2015 [TET] under the Art Group and she was allotted Roll No. 6110100753. It is said that the petitioner is a handicapped lady having 45% disability and as such she applied in handicapped category. In the said examination when the result was declared, the petitioner obtained 85 marks but was declared "not qualified" whereas the cut of merit in the handicapped category was 82.

(3.) On inquiry, she came to know that she has not been considered in the handicapped category and as such she has been declared as 'not qualified' in the result. Therefore, she made a representation dated 11.4.2016 to the Controller of Examination-Opposite Party No.5 claiming her consideration in the handicapped category.As no action has been taken on the said representation, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition inter-alia for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner under the handicapped category and declare her result.