Tripura-TET 2021: High Court Refuses To Ascertain Correctness Of Answer Key, Says Lapses In Large Scale Exams Cannot Be Termed Deliberate
The Tripura High Court recently reiterated that a Constitutional Court must exercise great restrain while entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers in an examination process. Large scale examination is a very difficult task and may reveal certain lapses, which cannot on the face of it be termed as a deliberate one to warrant interference, it added.The observations came...
The Tripura High Court recently reiterated that a Constitutional Court must exercise great restrain while entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers in an examination process. Large scale examination is a very difficult task and may reveal certain lapses, which cannot on the face of it be termed as a deliberate one to warrant interference, it added.
The observations came to be made by a bench of Justice Arindam Lodh while hearing a catena of petitions seeking directions upon Teacher Recruitment Board Tripura to re-evaluate the questions in the Tripura Teacher‟s Eligibility Test-2 (TTET) 2021 and to constitute expert committee to determine the correctness of the questions and answers of Tripura Teacher‟s Eligibility Test-2 (T-TET) 2021.
The Teachers Recruitment Board, Tripura, conducted T-TET 2021 in two papers and the petitioners appeared in the examination held on 03.10.2021. At the time of examination, according to the petitioners, some questions were contradictory and some were out of syllabus.
Subsequently the tentative key answers came to be issued in which the petitioners found that some answers were contradictory/wrong and hence came to be challenged following the TRBT Rules by submitting Rs.500/- for each question.
However, without considering the representations the board issued a final answer key. Having found the grievances being not addressed, the petitioners submitted several prayers to the board for reviewing the aforesaid questions along with the final key answers and also prayed to consider awarding of marks to the candidates who did not secure the cut-off marks due to incorrect questions or incorrect/contradictory answers.
Inaction on the part of respondents constrained the petitioner to seek indulgence of the court in the matter. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the petitioners were very close to secure the cut-off marks and they were unsuccessful in qualifying the T-TET Examination only because of the fault of the respondents.
The moot questions that sought answers from the bench were as to whether and to what extent the expert opinion can be questioned and be scrutinized in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and to what extent the Court could address the grievance of the petitioners.
Dealing with the first question, the court placed firm reliance on U.P. Public Service Commission through its Chairman and Anr vs. Rahul Singh and Anr., (2018) observed,
"The onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect, but, also it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong".
Observing that certain question or questions may carry an answer, which may on the face of it appears to be correct and may be in some of the text books or references be indicated to be so, but the court clarified that ultimately, it is the paper-setting Committee and the Expert Committee which have the advantage of having subject experts of various fields, if have arrived on a conclusion that particular answer is correct answer, this Court will refrain itself from holding it otherwise.
The court also answered in negative to the contention of the petitioners that that when there are disputes as regards the correct answers between the candidates and the subject expert, then, benefits should be given to the candidates.
Pointing out to the fact that TRBT had already obtained subject expert's opinion in regard to all the questions as questioned by the candidates, the court added "The Court must not transgress an area in which it has no expertise and where it has to act and take a decision only with the aid of experts of the respective field/area, which this Court had exactly done by way of referring the objections/claims as suggested by learned counsels appearing for the petitioners directing the respondents to appoint a Two-member Expert Committee for verification and submission of reports before this Court".
Observing that sympathy or compassion does not have any role and entire examination process, the court maintained that an examination process does not deserve to be derailed because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceived some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer.
Accordingly the bench found the petition without any merit and dismissed the same.
Case Title: Smt Tripura Roy Vs State of Tripura
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Trip) 3