Ankana Thakur vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J

The petitioner appeared for the selection test for recruitment of Assistant Teachers in Secondary and Higher Secondary schools under the Rules framed by the School Service Commission namely the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to the Posts of Teachers for Classes XI and XII in Higher Secondary Schools) Rules, 2016.

The grievance of the petitioner is two-fold. First, that due to miscalculation made by the Commission /Correcting Authority, the petitioner was awarded 47 instead of 48 marks in the written test. The second point urged is that the petitioner answered the question no. 54 of the written test has wrongly been assessed by the Commission.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that had the petitioner been given the marks allotted to question No. 54, the petitioner would have got a total of 83 marks in stead of 82 and would have been called for the personality test under Rule 12(6) of the 2016 Rules. Counsel submits that the last mark obtained by the candidates who were called for the personality test was 83 whereas petitioner got 82 and therefore was excluded from the zone of consideration. Counsel disputes the expert opinion of one Pinakesh Chandra Sarkar, retired Professor in Bengali of Jadavpur University and raises doubts on the worth of said expert opinion. Counsel relies on the opinion obtained from Dr. Pabitra Sarkar in relation to the disputed answer and submits that the inconsistent views expressed by the experts of the petitioner and the Commission would show that the petitioner ought to have been awarded an additional mark. It is also submitted that question No. 54 itself is subject to various interpretation by reason of which no one answer can be said to be the correct answer.

Learned counsel for the Commission places the view of the expert who was called to give an opinion pursuant to the direction passed by this Court and who has reiterated the answer key provided by the Commission. Counsel disputes that there can be no scope for miscalculation since the answer scripts are not corrected manually but there is a software of correction of such answer scripts. Counsel states that the view of Pinakesh Chandra Sarkar is the view of the third expert who has provided the correct answer to question No. 54, and which tallies that the answer key of the Commission. It is submitted that the initial answer key has been arrived after two experts have finalised the key answers. Counsel submits that there is no scope for re-assessment of the written test and to the answer provided to question no. 54.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. For proper appreciation of what the controversy relates to, question no. 54 is set out below in translation.

What is the correct answer of comedy with conspiratorial elements:

(a) Bibhaho Bibhrat

(b) Abu Hossain

(c) Poropare

(d) Chandragupta.

The petitioner chose option (a) namely "Bibhaho Bibhrat". The correct answer according to the Commission is option (c) namely "Poropare".

By an order dated 15th January, 2019, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, it appears that learned counsel for the Commission had submitted that question no. 54 has been sent for an expert for evaluation. The expert opinion which is now on record shows that the expert being a retired Professor of Bengali of Jadavpur University has opined that option (c) 'Parapare' " is actually a comedy that contains conspiracy to some extent." The expert has also given his opinion on the other option which is that 'Bibhaho Bibhrat' "is a farce not a comedy", 'Abu Hossain' is an opera, and Chandragupta "is a historical Tragedy". The opinion obtained by the petitioner on her own and by an exchange of e-mails is more interesting. The e-mails show that the petitioner asked Dr. Pabitra Sarkar of his view with regard to which of the four options would qualify as comedy with conspiratorial elements. The answer provided by Dr. Pabitra Sarkar is worthy of being reproduced, again in translation. To get the correct flavour of the views expressed by Dr. Pabitra Sarkar and the humour therein the Bengali words are reproduced in English.

" Amar kache tow konotakaie mone hocchena. Chandra Gupta ke comedy bolte ashubidha hoi. Eai prasnakartar gyner ami sima Paina. Tene tune Chandra Gupta kei bala jai."

Relying on the above exchange, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the view of Dr. Pabitra Sarkar would highlight the ambiguity of the question itself which in turn should be construed in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that in the alternative question no. 54 should be scrapped and the petitioner should be given the benefit of doubt with regard to the obvious ambiguity and to award an additional mark. The additional mark would then result in the petitioner being called for the personality test. In the view of this Court, the answer key was admittedly arrived at by the views of two experts. A third expert was directed to have re-look of the matter since a controversy was raised by the petitioner. The third expert has arrived at the same conclusion namely that the option (c) 'Poropare' is the correct answer while option (a) 'Bibhaho Bibharat' is a farce, and not a comedy. It must be remembered that the question asked was to name a comedy with conspiratorial elements. Once three experts have given the same views, it is not open for this Court to get into their arena of deciding what the correct answer should be and in any event, this Court does not have the requisite knowledge/expertise to do so. On the other hand, the doubt raised as to the opinion of Pinakesh Chandra Sarkar cannot be accepted. This Court sees nothing wrong in the expert attending office of Commission for expressing the opinion in the matter or that the ambiguity in the signature of the expert can reject the opinion altogether. Most important, even if Dr. Pabitra Sarkar's opinion is to be accepted, this Court fails to see how that can benefit the petitioner since the petitioner did not choose option (d) (Chandragupta), which is the most probable answer according to Dr. Pabitra Sarkar. If this be the case, this Court also fails to see how the petitioner can be given the benefit of the alleged ambiguity to question no. 54 and be awarded the additional mark which the petitioner has fallen short of for being called for the personality test. The uncertainty expressed by the Commission's experts to some extent with regard to 'Poropare' being a comedy containing elements of conspiracy also cannot pursuade this Court to scrap question no. 54 altogether.

In view of the reasons stated above, this Court finds no ground to direct a reassessment of question no. 54 or reexamination of the marks allotted to the petitioner.

However, since this Court has not gone into the actual calculation of the marks awarded to the petitioner in the written test, as has been fairly submitted by counsel for the Commission, the Secretary of the West Bengal School Service Commission is directed to recalculate the marks awarded to the petitioner in the presence of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from date.

W.P. 10953 (W) of 2018 is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.