AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
40 paragraphs · 546 wordsRakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent to revise the answer keys for question Nos. 3, 26, 107,
116, 129 and 135 of question booklet ''A'' code series, provided for the exams of Haryana Teacher''s Eligibility Test-2011 as, according to her,
the answer keys of these questions were wrong. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the question paper was set in two languages of
English and Hindi. The reading of Hindi and English questions gave a different meaning, therefore, the answer given by the petitioner has been
found to be wrong.
As a matter of fact, it has not been disclosed by the petitioner that in which language the questions were read and attempted by her. The
petitioner has allegedly got 88 marks, whereas the qualifying marks are 90 and in order to get two more marks, the present writ petition has been
filed, finding fault with the answer keys.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that until and unless it is not disclosed by the petitioner as to in
which language the questions were read and attempted causing confusion to her, no relief can be granted to her. Moreover, the petitioner has
specifically sated that answer key of question Nos. 3, 26 and 116 needs to be corrected as the petitioner had given the right answers. In this
regard, question No. 3 with options is reproduced here-as-under:--
Which sources will provide maximum and up-to-date information about a subject?
(1) Encyclopedias
(2) Internet
(3) Latest academic journals
(4) International conferences
According to the respondents, the answer to this question is option (3) i.e. latest academic journals, but according to the petitioner, it is option
(2) i.e. Internet.
In my considered opinion, sole reliance cannot be placed upon the internet because it depends upon updation of the material or information on
the website.
Further, question No. 26 is reproduced as under:--
The capacity to arrange objects serially is developed in the child when he is in
(1) Sensory motor stage
(2) Pre-operational stage
(3) Concrete operational stage
(4) Formal operation stage
According to the respondents, the answer to this question is option (2) i.e. Pre-operational stage but according to the petitioner the answer is
option (3) i.e. Concrete operation stage, which she gathers from the book written by Smt. Promila Oberoi.
The last question is No. 116, which is reproduced here-as-under:
When adolescents feel themselves ugly?
(1) on fast physical development
(2) on less physical development
(3) on unbalanced physical development
(4) All of the above.
According to the respondent, the answer to this question is option (3) i.e. on unbalanced physical development but according to the petitioner, it is
option (4) for which the petitioner again relied upon some book of a particular author.
The Court is not an expert to determine these matters as to which answer is correct. Thus, the answer prepared by the examiner cannot be
challenged by the petitioner by way of placing reliance upon the books and observations of the other authors. Keeping in view the totality of the
circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and hence the same is hereby dismissed.
