Dhanjit Barman vs State Level Eligibility Test Commission And 3 Ors

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. P.J.

Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University for Respondents No.3 and 4.

The petitioner is the Principal of Jalukbari Higher Secondary School, Guwahati having M.Sc. in Mathematics and Ph.D in Pure Mathematics.

On the basis of a Notification dated 10.11.2018 (Online) published for State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) 2019, to be conducted by the State Eligibility

Test Commission, Assam, the petitioner submitted his application. The date for examination was fixed on 3.3.2019 in all the University Centres of

North East States. The Scheme for the State Level Eligibility Test consisted of two papers, both in the OMR Pattern. The first paper was of 100

marks and there were 50 questions. The second paper was of 200 marks and there were 100 questions. The petitioner, accordingly, appeared in the

test and, thereafter, the Member Secretary, SLET Commission, Assam, Guwahati (North East Region), by a Notification dated 8.3.2019 published the

answers to the question for SLET, 2019 for furnishing feedback with supporting documents to SLET Commission, Assam on or before 23.03.2019. It

was further informed in the said Notification that no feedback will be accepted and entertained after 23.03.2019.

The petitioner, on going through the provisional answer keys, was satisfied and, therefore, he did not give any feedback in terms of the Notification

dated 8.3.2019. Thereafter, on receiving feedbacks to the answer keys from aggrieved parties, the Member Secretary, SLET Commission, Assam,

issued Notification dated 22.04.2019 notifying that the representations on the answer keys were forwarded to the Professors of University to examine

and suggest the final keys and, on receipt of the report, the final answer keys were uploaded. It was further provided that under no circumstances, the

revised answer keys will be modified and no further representation will be entertained.

In view of the revised answer keys that were uploaded, the petitioner is aggrieved inasmuch as in the Mathematics Paper, two of the questions were

revised and, accordingly, the petitioner lost two marks thereby depriving him of being selected in the SLET of 2019.

In the meantime, the SLET Commission published the result on 25.06.2019. The petitioner, thereafter, on 23.07.2019 submitted a representation

through e-mail with regards to the anomalies of the answer keys of Mathematical Science stating that he has found seven answers wrongly given in

the subject of Mathematical Science published in their Website. Thereafter, on 27.08.2019, the Member Secretary, SLET Commission, Assam, wrote

back to the petitioner that his case could not be entertained inasmuch as he has made his representation after the result were already published. Being

aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court praying for a direction to the respondents for reconsideration of his case.

Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the first provisional answer keys were published by the authorities by the

notification dated 8.3.2019, the petitioner was not having any grievance against the provisional answer keys inasmuch as he has answered the

questions correctly. However, after the feedbacks on the answer keys were considered by the respondents, the Notification dated 22.04.2019 was

issued thereby uploading the final/revised answer keys and the petitioner found that he has lost two marks in view of the revised/final answer keys

thereby depriving him of being selected in the said SLET 2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is only seeking a

direction to the respondents to consider his representation and, thereafter, to pass an appropriate order. Learned counsel for the petitioner also places

reliance in the case of Rajesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 690, and in the order dated 27.7.2021 passed

in Subakhana Gogoi and 18 others Vs. State of Assam and others [W.P.(C) No.3378 of 2021].

Mr. S. Deka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No.1 and 2/SLET, Assam, on the other hand submits that the respondents after

issuance of the Notification dated 8.3.2019 and on receiving feedbacks, the answer keys were submitted to the Senior Professors of the University

and, thereafter, the final/revised answer keys were published with the further direction that no more representation would be accepted. It is also

submitted that the petitioner had made his representation only on 23.07.2019, much after the results were published i.e. on 25.06.2019. Therefore,

entertaining the representation of the petitioner would cause great injustice to those selected candidates and, therefore, the representation was rejected

by the concerned authorities by giving reasons.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The information brochure of the SLET Commission, Assam has also been considered by this Court, which is annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition

filed by the respondents No.1 and 2. Clause -6 (xi) of the said brochure, reads as under :-

“(xi) The Candidates having any grievances with regard to the result may send a written request to the Member Secretary SLET

Commission (N.E. Region) for rechecking the result with a Demand Draft of Rs.5000.00 in favour of Member Secretary, SLET Commission,

drawn on SBI, Gauhati University Branch (2060) within 15 days from the date of declaration of result. The request so received will be

examined by the Committee. It will be limited to the checking of the results as per answer-Keys revised/corrected on the basis of feed-back.

In no case, the revision/correction of the Answer-key will be considered again. In case the result declared is found incorrect, the same will

be revised accordingly, and the fee paid will be refunded otherwise the fee will be forfeited.â€​

The notification dated 8.3.2019 has also been considered by this Court whereby representations/feedbacks were called for against the provisional

answer keys. The petitioner made no representation against the said provisional answer keys inasmuch as he had no grievance against the same.

However, it appears that other candidates had given their feedbacks against the provisional answer keys and, thereafter, the answer keys were

submitted to the Senior Professors of University and the final/revised answer keys were published by the Notification dated 22.04.2019.

A perusal of the record would indicate that the result for the SLET 2019 was published on 25.06.2019. The representation of the petitioner was made

on 23.07.2019, which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-H (at Page-44). The petitioner made his representation against the final/revised

answer keys after a lapse of about 3(three) months and also after publication of the results.

This Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the decisions of the Experts, particularly when this Court does not have the expertise to look into such

a matter.

It is also to be noted that the notification dated 22.04.2019 clearly prescribes that under no circumstances the revised/final answer keys will be

modified and no further representation will be entertained.

I have considered the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, on consideration of the same, I find that they are not

applicable to the case of the petitioner.

In such circumstances, I am unable to grant any relief to the petitioner at this stage and, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, with no

order as to cost.