RANJIT SARKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the State All thirty eight writ petitioners in the two writ petitions appeared in 1st State Level Selection Test, 2016 for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers for Physical Education and Work Education (Upper-Primary Level) in the State. The Test is governed by the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to the Posts of Teachers for Upper Primary Level of Schools) Rules, 2016. The common grievance of the writ petitioners is the alleged wrong marking of certain answers to specific questions in the written examination. The petitioners state that if the answers provided by the petitioners had been accepted by the Commission and the questions marked accordingly, the petitioners would have found a place in the interview list under Rule 13(9) of the 2016 Rules. The petitioners' case is that the answers furnished by the Commission in the model key answers published do not tally with those suggested by the petitioners, the latter being based on accepted materials including text books. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners should be given full marks to Question numbers 2, 31, 34, 35, 38, 44, 46 and 54 since the answers written by the petitioners in the written test were based on corroborative materials. Learned counsel submits that besides the model key answers given by the Commission, the answers given by the experts also do not match with those provided by the petitioners. It is the collective case of the petitioners that had marks being awarded to the petitioners in respect of the eight questions, the petitioners would not have been excluded from the interview list which is the stage subsequent to the written examination in the total evaluation process.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Commission relies upon a Report filed pursuant to a direction of this Court which shows a list of final key answers given by the Commission after consulting with experts. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have been given the benefit of doubt wherever the answers given by the petitioners have found to be matching with those given by the experts. Learned counsel submits that the candidates were given an opportunity to respond to the model key answers published by the Commission and the final key answers was prepared by the Commission based on the suggestions of candidates which were used for the evaluation of the written test. It is further submitted that although the Rules do not require the Commission to publish model key answers, the Commission has followed this practice for ensuring a fair mechanism of evaluation of the answer scripts. The sequence to be followed by the Commission for evaluating the answer scripts of the written examination before candidates are short listed for the interview under Rule 13(9) of the 2016 Rules involves model key answers being published by the Commission in its website inviting suggestions from the candidates after candidates take part in the written examination under Rule 13(8) of the 2016 Rules. Based on the suggestions given by the candidates the Commission prepares final key answers which is then used for marking the individual answer scripts. The Commission also appoints a panel of experts for marking of the answer scripts. Admittedly, the writ petitioners responded to the model key answers and gave their suggestions to the Commission. The controversy hence relates to the answers of the writ petitioners not tallying with the key answers framed by the Commission.

(3.) The writ petitioners have relied on materials, mostly from textbooks, to show that the suggestions of the writ petitioners are correct which were not accepted by the Commission leading to the petitioners not being awarded marks in eight questions.