NARESH CHANDRA MAHTO Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to declare the petitioner among the successful candidates in Jharkhand Teacher Eligibility Test- 2016 as the petitioner would have got 79 marks out of 150 marks i.e. more than 52 % marks in Jharkhand Teacher Eligibility Test- 2016, but respondents have given only 75 marks out of 150 marks i.e. 50 % due to arbitrary and malicious consideration of the answers of the petitioner. Further prayer has been made to declare the option D of question No. 9 of the Hindi and option D of question No. 20 of English in the 'First Answer Key' published by the respondents as correct answer and to hold and declare the 'Second Answer Key' as incorrect.

(2.) The petitioner appeared in Jharkhand Teacher Eligibility Test Examination- 2016, which was held on 20.11.2016. The petitioner has opted compulsory Regional Language 'Panch Pargania' and optional subject is Social Studies for JTET Examination- 2016. The petitioner belongs to Most Backward Classes and qualifying marks fixed under his category is 52 % of the total marks. It is specific case of the petitioner that due to erroneous answer keys, the petitioner cannot qualify in the JTET-2016. The petitioner would have secured 79 marks out of 150 marks but the respondents have given only 75 marks out of 150 marks to the petitioner due to erroneous second answer key. The petitioner has suffered due to respondents as they have published two answer key. Though the petitioner represented before the respondents for correction in the answer key and awarding marks as per the correct answer key but the same was not considered and petitioner was declared unsuccessful. Hence, the petitioner has preferred present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Kaushalendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer because of the fault on the part of the respondents. Apparently, the mistake lies on the part of the respondents as because of the erroneous answer keys, the petitioner has not been able to obtain required 79 marks and as such, if the first answer key is corrected, he will obtain more than 79 marks and would have been declared successful in JTET-2016. Learned counsel further submits that a direction be given upon the respondents to consider the first answer key as correct and to declare the result of the petitioner after awarding marks as per the first answer key. Learned counsel has also alleged mala fide against the JAC and argues that because of the mala fide intention, the case of the petitioner has not been considered.