Romola Kisku vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The matter has been taken up through video conferencing.

The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder direction has been sought for upon the

respondents-JAC to issue fresh mark-sheet to the petitioner bearing Roll No. 16073282 showing him as qualified candidate in Level Class I-5 of

Teachers Eligibility Test, 2012 conducted by Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi pursuant to Advertisement No. 95/12 or to re-publish the result of

the petitioner on the basis of 1st answer-sheet issued by the Council and not on the basis of 2nd answer-sheet, in which, the petitioner will get 92

marks instead of 74 marks and further to give at least pass marks to the petitioner.

The brief fact of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which requires to be enumerated herein reads hereunder as:

The petitioner having adequate educational qualification of I.Sc. participated in the Teachers Eligibility Test (in short 'TET') Examination issued vide

Advertisement No. 95/2012 by Jharkhand Academic Council and duly applied for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in the district of

Sahibganj.

According to writ petitioner, as he comes under the category of Scheduled Tribe, having all required qualification, applied to the post of Assistant

Teacher in the district of Sahibganj, whereupon the Jharkhand Academic Council issued Admit Card having Roll No. 16073282, in which, the

petitioner appeared but after publication of result he was shown to be unsuccessful.

It is further case of the writ petitioner that after the examination was conducted and before publication of the result, many candidates complained

about wrong answers in the examination conducted by the Council, which was assured to be corrected in the 2 nd answer-key but without publication

of 2nd answer-key, result was pubished, in which, the petitioner was awarded 74 marks out of 150 marks and was declared disqualified as because

passing marks of the category i.e. Scheduled Tribe, in which the writ petition falls, was 78 marks Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

that respondents-JAC has not acted fairly as because even though certain answers of the questions have been found to be incorrect but instead of

coming out with 2 nd answer-key, the entire result has been published, which is not justified as when the academic council itself has come to the

conclusion about incorrectness of some answers, then it was incumbent upon the council to come out with the second answer-key but having not done

so the writ petitioner has been shown to have secured 74 marks while the writ petitioner was expected to get 92 marks.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents- JAC, the contesting respondents.

Ms. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel for the respondent-JAC, referring to paragraph 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit has submitted that after

conducting the TET Examination, 2012 and prior to publication of result, the final answer-key was published by Jharkhand Academic Council, on the

basis of which, the petitioner has got 74 marks instead of 92 marks, as would be evident from Annexure A series to the counter affidavit. It has

further been submitted that the petitioner has obtained 74 marks which was below the cut off marks i.e. 78 marks for the category ST/SC/MBC,

therefore, whatever relief has been sought for in this writ petition is not fit to be extended in favour of the writ petitioner.

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record as also the pleadings of the parties.

Admitted case herein is that the writ petitioner has participated in the examination conducted by Jharkhand Academic Council vide Advertisement No.

95/2012, in which, he is shown to have secured 74 marks. It is admitted fact that the JAC has fixed 78 marks as cut off marks for consideration of the

candidature belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Category, in which the petitioner falls, and since the petitioner has been found to have obtained only 74

marks, he has been shown to be unsuccessful candidate having secured lesser marks than 78.

Upon this, objection has been raised by the writ petitioner before the respondents-JAC by way of submitting application dated 30.05.2013, as would be

evident from Annexure 5 to the writ petition.

By referring to Anneuxre 5, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon this Court that the writ petitioner was supposed to get 92

marks, since according to the writ petitioner certain answers have been shown to be incorrect, which was assured to be corrected by the JAC by

publishing second answer-key but no second answer-key was published. It has further been averred that in case of non-issuance of second answer-

key the petitioner have been awarded marks as per 1st answer-key otherwise, he would have secured 92 marks.

The contention raised by the writ petitioner has vehemently been disputed by the respondents-JAC by making specific statement at paragraph 8 and 9

of the counter affidavit that the petitioner has since secured only 74 marks, which is below the cut off marks of the candidates in which the petitioner

falls, as such he has been declared unsuccessful.

This Court, has travelled across the objection filed by the writ petitioner vide representation dated 30.05.2013, annexed at Annexure 5 to the writ

petition wherefrom it is evident that the petitioner has brought to the notice of the respondents-JAC by raising objection to the effect that the writ

petitioner has been awarded only 74 marks out of 150 while he should have been awarded 92 marks. It has further ben referred therein that

immediately after the examination, the examining body-JAC has issued answer key which contains some discrepancy, as such assurance was given

by the Council that second answer key would be published but no second answer key was published rather according to the writ petitioner the entire

merit list was prepared on the basis of allotment of marks based upon 1 st answer key and if the second answer key would have been published then

certainly the writ petitioner would have been awarded 92 marks, but the writ petitioner has failed to show any substantive piece of evidence with

respect to such assurance having been given by the JAC either showing discrepancies in the answer key or publication of second answer key.

On the other hand, the counter of the respondent- JAC is very crystal clear showing the reason for declaring the writ petitioner unsuccessful on the

ground of securing 74 marks i.e. lesser marks than the required cut off marks.

Further, no rebuttal has been given by the writ petitioner to the statement made at counter affidavit, therefore, this Court accepts the averment made

at the counter affidavit by treating admission of such statement on the part of the wit petitioner.

This Court, therefore, is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for passing any positive direction as because whatever pleading

has been made by the writ petitioner that is based merely upon presumption and further even if it is being accepted that whatever statement made in

the objection petition of the writ petitioner, Annexure 5 to the writ petitioner, to be true it was incumbent upon the writ petitioner to substantiate the

aforesaid fact by procuring document from the JAC in a days where the applicability of RTI is there as because since the writ petitioner has

approached the writ Court it is onus upon the writ petitioner to substantiate the representation since writ proceeding being a summary proceeding is

supposed to be adjudicated on the basis of pleading, supported by documents but this Court has got no substantive document in spite of the averment

having been made in the writ petition. Therefore, such averment is not fit to be accepted also for the reason by taking into consideration the pleading

made in the counter affidavit.

This Court, therefore, is of the view that the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.