BHUPALI SAIKIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department appearing for the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. D. K. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 as well as Mr. H. Barua, learned Standing Counsel representing the SSA, Assam.

(2.) The present proceeding has been instituted by the petitioner alleging that on account of wrong answer keys with regard to the questions no. 36 and 133 of Paper-I (Assamese Stream) pertaining to the Assam State Teacher's Eligibility Test for Lower Primary Schools, the petitioner was deprived of 2(two) marks and accordingly, she was declared to be not qualified in the said examination. The petitioner had participated in the said TET examination, 2019 and had secured 81 marks out of 150. The petitioner being a candidate belonging to the More Other Backward Classes (MOBC) category was required to secure 83 marks out of 150 marks for qualifying in the said TET examination. The petitioner has instituted the present proceeding questioning the answer keys with regard to two questions i.e., questions no. 36 and 133 of the said Paper-I (Assamese Stream). The questions along with the options being relevant are extracted herein below:

(3.) It is seen that with regard to question no. 133, the answer key as reflected option A to be the correct answer, however, it is contended by the petitioner herein that she had opted for option B. The petitioner further contends that the option A in the said question paper is wrong inasmuch as in place of 'Xudirgho Din Aru Ritu', it was projected as 'Xudirgho Din Aru Rati'. The said error, according to this Court, is a typographical error and does not go to the root of the matter and accordingly, the petitioner not having opted for option A against the question no. 133, she would not be entitled to any marks against the same.