DIBYA JYOTI SARMAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard Mr. P.K. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. U.K. Goswami, the learned standing counsel for the Education (Elementary) Department, Assam, I am of the view that there is no merit in this writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed. But, the facts of the case may be briefly noticed at the outset. The petitioner has the qualification of M.Sc. with B.Ed degrees and applied for Teachers' Eligibility Test (TET) Examination in response to the advertisement dated 21-12-2013, and appeared in the Examination on 8-2-2014, the result whereof was declared on 18-2-2014. However, his roll number was included among the list of disqualified candidates on the ground of wrong selection/marking of parts in the answer sheet of Paper II (OptionB). He immediately filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 1-3-2014, but the information so furnished was not satisfactory whereupon he approached this Court in WP(C) No. 3560 of 2014 to redress his grievance This Court by the order dated 25-7-2014 disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative statutory remedy of appeal available to him under the law. At this stage, it may be noted that there are two papers for the TET examination. Paper-I was common to all whereas Paper-II had Option B with four Parts namely, Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Mathematics. Out of these four parts, the petitioner opted for Chemistry and Biology. What had happened is that the petitioner marked not only Chemistry and Biology parts but even went to the extent of marking the Physics part. This prompted the respondents to disqualify him as a candidate for the TET examination. One of the instructions of the Test Booklet is in the following terms:

(2.) Even a cursory look at the foregoing instruction will plainly show that a candidate cannot answer more than two out of the four parts, and any transgression of such instruction would incur disqualification. In the instant case, the petitioner has admittedly opted for Chemistry and Biology parts and did not opt for Physics part. Yet, he marked in the circle of the box meant for Physics part in addition to Chemistry and Biology parts in contravention of the Instruction of the Test Booklet by mistake or otherwise. Even if it was due to inadvertence also, there appears to be no provision for condoning such inadvertence inasmuch as the clear terms of the Instruction in question negates the existence of any discretion. Moreover, it is a competitive examination where the rule of survival of the fittest prevails. I understand it is a costly mistake with disastrous consequence for the petitioner, but then hardship or inconvenience or the consequences thereof cannot be a ground for the interference of this Court unless violation of his legal or constitutional right resulting therefrom is made out by the petitioner.

(3.) For the reasons stated in the forgoing, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.