AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Muhamed Mustaque. J.
The issue in this writ appeal is an interesting one. In an examination conducted by the first respondent for K-TET, a question was framed as follows:
“22. Which region of our brain controls the motor function?”
The answer key shows option No.3. “Cerebellum”.
The appellant, who was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, answered it as per the answer key. However, some others have raised objections regarding the answer key. Then, based on an expert opinion, answer key was corrected as Option No.4 “Cerebral Cortex”.
Apparently, it appears that there are difference of opinion by experts itself as to the correct answer. The learned Single Judge directed the Government to consider. Not satisfied with this direction, the appellant has come before this Court in appeal.
We find that when two answers are possible and the experts cannot rule out either of the two answers, we are of the view that the benefit of doubt should be given to the candidate, if it is not a wrong answer. The answer key itself shows that the answer given by the petitioner was the right answer. Thereafter, based on the objection, it was corrected as “Option No.4”.
In such circumstances, we are not reviewing the experts view in this matter. We are only looking into the hurdle of the candidate who can not be penalised for giving correct answer in accordance with the answer key. Therefore, we are of view that “One Mark” under Question No.22 should be given to the appellant, if the appellant has answered right option as per the answer key. Therefore, the impugned judgment is modified and we direct the competent authority to award “One Mark” to the appellant based on Question No.22.
This Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.