Arunima Haloi And 7 Ors. vs State Of Assam And 3 Ors

Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.M.T. Chistie, learned counsel for the respondents No.1,2

and 4 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

Considering the nature of the grievance being raised, we are of the view that the Rastriya Madhyamik Sikshya Abhiyan (RMSA) is also a

necessary party in this proceeding. Accordingly, we require the petitioners to array the RMSA through its Mission Director to be the respondent No.5.

Registry to incorporate necessary correction in the cause title. Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel also appears for the respondent No.5 being the

RMSA.

In all the four writ petitions, a common grievance is raised to the extent that in the recently conducted Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) for the posts

of graduate teachers in the State of Assam certain incorrectness and anomalies had crept in while arriving at the correct answers to the questions that

were set in the TET examination which was held pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.11.2020.

Three of the writ petitions pertain to the TET examination held for the arts, science and commerce streams, respectively, and the fourth writ

petition is regarding certain general grievance being raised in respect of paper-1 which is a common paper.

The grievances raised are as regards the correct answers to the questions that were set. The petitioners herein and some other similarly situated

persons had moved the respondent authorities for necessary correction to the answer keys for the questions that were set, as well as in respect of

some of the questions itself. While attending such grievance, the respondent authorities found that certain incorrectness had crept in and accordingly

the results which were declared in February, 2021 were revised and the revised results were declared on 25th May, 2021.

These petitions are instituted on the grievance that even after such corrective measures were taken, the petitioners found that some further

incorrectness in respect of some of the answers are still in existence and certain questions itself were incorrect.

The allegation of incorrectness pertains to certain wrong answers being depicted in the answer keys and that some of the questions itself were

incorrect, while some of the questions were beyond the stipulated syllabus. It is stated that in respect of some of the questions more than one correct

answer were also provided. Mr. S.M.T. Chistie, learned counsel at this stage raises an objection that as regards the questions that were beyond the

syllabus, objection thereof ought to have been raised immediately after the examination.

Be that as it may, we are not expressing any view on the said objection and we leave it to the authorities to consider it.

As regards the common grievances raised, in respect of incorrect answers and incorrect questions, we deem it appropriate that the Court does not

have the expertise to determine whether the answers appearing in the answer keys were correct answers or not as well as also whether the questions

itself were correct or not.

At the same time, the petitioners have also raised an apprehension that there is a likelihood that a recruitment process would be initiated for the

post graduate teachers within a very short time and if such recruitment is conducted on the basis of such incorrectness that had crept in the TET

examination, the petitioners would prejudiced. Accordingly, a prayer is made that in the interim, such recruitment process may be deferred till the

authorities arrive at a correct decision on the grievances being raised as regards the correctness of the answers and that of the questions.

Regarding the interim prayer made, we are of the view that if the recruitment process itself is interfered by the Court, in the interim, till the

grievances raised by the petitioners are duly addressed, it would not only cause an inconvenience to many other candidates who were selected in the

TET examination, but it may also cause a serious harm to the students for whom the recruitment process of the post graduate teachers may be made.

In the circumstance, we are of the view that an equitable view on the whole aspect would be to direct the petitioners to file either a common

representation for all the four petitions or the four different representations for the four different writ petitions before the Mission Director, RMSA.

In the representation/ representations, the petitioners shall state in detail the incorrectness of the answers of the questions and other issues which

have been specifically raised and stated in the various paragraphs of these writ petitions.

The representations be submitted within a period of three days from today. Upon the representations being submitted, the Mission Director shall

give a personal hearing to one of the representatives of the petitioners i.e. if one common representation is submitted it will be one representative from

the petitioners and if four representations are submitted it will be four different representatives for the four different writ petitions.

The Mission Director shall also inform the petitioners about the date, time and place of the hearing to be given. The representative/representatives

of the petitioners while attending the hearing shall carry with them all the materials that they desire to rely upon to substantiate their claims.

The Mission Director may also take the advice of the academic experts of the Department to arrive at the correct answer of the questions or else

the correctness of the question themselves.

Upon undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the Mission Director shall pass a reasoned order within a period of two weeks from the date of

submission of the representation/representations. To facilitate the proceedings, copies of the writ petitions may also be enclosed along with the

representation/representations to be submitted.

The Mission Director after undertaking such exercise shall pass a reasoned order and based upon the outcome of the order further actions may be

taken by the Mission Director in respect of the recruitment process that may be initiated, meaning thereby that if the incorrectness are accepted by

the Mission Director, necessary corrective measures be taken and if the incorrectness pointed out is unacceptable, a reasoned order be passed and

the same be provided to the petitioners.

All the writ petitions stand allowed in the above terms.