AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Datta Purkayastha, J
Heard Mr. D. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Mr. K.N. Bhattacharya, learned GA has appeared for all the respondents and waives service of notice upon them.
Also heard Mr. Bhattacharya, learned GA.
With consent of both the sides, the writ petition is being disposed of in the motion stage.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he participated in the T-TET examination, 2024 and in Paper-I against question No.09, he selected the answer given under option ‘(B)’ i.e. ‘group factor theory’ which according to him is correct but in OMR sheet (Annexure-6), the correct answer is shown to be option ‘(A)’ i.e. ‘two-factor theory’. The said question with all 4[four] options given as answer thereof, are extracted hereunder:
“9. Anarchic theory of intelligence is also known as
(A) two-factor theory
(B) group factor theory
(C) sampling theory
(D) None of the above”
Mr. Pal, learned counsel submits that the petitioner also appeared in the T-TET examination of the year 2022, where similar question was put against question No.7 of Paper-I under Annexure-7 and when the final Answer Key was published (Annexure-8), the correct answer was shown as answer given against option ‘(B)’ i.e. ‘group factor theory’.
Now, Mr. Paul, learned counsel submits that the answer shown in OMR sheet against said question now is not correct and one mark is required to be added with the total score of the petitioner in the T-TET examination of 2024. Mr. Paul, learned counsel also submits that only for shortfall of one mark, the petitioner could not succeed in the examination and if this answer is treated to be correct, he will qualify the said examination. Mr. Paul, learned counsel also submits that if the petitioner qualifies the examination, he will be required to appear before the authority for document verification.
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned GA on the other hand, submits that the appropriate authority who is expert in this matter is required to examine and decide first whether the answer given by the petitioner is correct or not and whether wrong answer was shown in the OMR sheet, but the petitioner never bring the issue to the appropriate authority by submitting any representation in this regard and without approaching the appropriate authority first in this regard, he cannot approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. Paul, learned counsel in reply thereof submits that the petitioner is ready to submit representation to the competent authority of the respondents by placing his grievances and seeking necessary redresses to them.
In view of the above submission of both sides and without giving any opinion or views on the merit of the writ petition, the writ petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit proper representation, with necessary materials, if any, within 7[seven] days to the appropriate authority of the respondents in this regard and on receipt of the same, the appropriate authority of the respondents will dispose of the same with a reasoned order within two week therefrom.
Needless to say that on disposal of such representation of the petitioner if it is found by the respondents that the petitioner has qualified the examination, necessary opportunity will be given to him to appear before them for the next step of documents verification.
Interim application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.