RTET Related Decision Regarding Correction of Marks
RTET / Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test News
Kuch Question Galat Paye Jaane Par Candidate court gaye aur unhone Bonus Marks Dene Kee Appeal Kee,Court ne Authority ko Representation Dene Ko Kaha, Representation Dene ke Baad
Sabhee Sandehaspad Questions Par Bonus Marks nahin Mile,
Candidates dobara gaye, tab Court ne kaha kee Exper Dwara Sandehaspad Question ko Review karne ke baad Jo marks diye gaye ham usme Hastakshen nahin kar sakte, aur Court ka dayra seemit hai.
Case No. CW - 734 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.734/2014
Trilok Kumar Sharma
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : 24/01/2014
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI
Mr. Suddarshan Laddha, for petitioner
***
By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 29.11.2013 at Annexure-10 whereby representation made by the petitioner in regard to dispute of the answer for question Nos.93 and 105 has been decided. It was pursuant to the direction of this court in the earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner.
Learned counsel submits that two questions at No.93 and 105 for Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test were not having correct answer thus the petitioner prayed for correction of the answer and if more than one answer is correct then to award bonus marks. The representation of the petitioner has been considered and as per the impugned order, answer set in the key is as per the book of original researcher for question no.93. For question no.105, answer of question as what is product used for construction of the road is Bitumen. Looking to the aforesaid, even the dispute regarding question no.105 was not accepted.
I have considered the submission made and before averting to the dispute of answer raised by the petitioner, it would be necessary to look into the jurisdiction of this court to interfere in the opinion of the expert. It is well settled that this court should not ordinarily interfere in the opinion of the expert. The view aforesaid is supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Talwinder Singh, reported in AIR 2012 SC 2725 so also of Karnataka High Court in Dr. Praveen Kumar I. Kusubi Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Ors., reported in 2004 (3) KarLJ 218. The relevant paras of the said judgments are quoted hereunder for ready reference:
“8. In The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 1285, this Court while placing reliance upon a large number of earlier judgments including Constitution Bench judgment in The University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao & Anr., AIR 1965 SC 491, held that ordinarily, the court should not interfere with the order based on opinion of experts on the subject. It would be safe for the courts to leave the decision to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be.”
“21. In the instant case, admittedly when some of the petitioners challenged the key answers notified on the website, the University considered their objections, upheld their objections, corrected the answers and given the benefit of the corrected answers to the petitioners. However, the petitioners' grievance is that the University has not accepted their challenge to all the questions. Insofar as challenge to those questions which are not accepted by the University, they want to substantiate their contention by relying on several textbooks and then they want to point out that the answers suggested by them is the correct answer and not the key answer. It is needless to point out that the questions were of multiple choice type, if experts after careful consideration have set the question and have suggested a particular answer, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioners that the answer suggested by the experts is not the correct answer and that the answer suggested by them is the correct answer, It is within the domain of the expert to decide the correct answer. They may differ regarding which is the best response out of four alternatives and therefore it is for them to decide. After careful consideration of the challenge by the petitioners, after referring to relevant textbooks and reference books, if they again have come to the conclusion that the answer suggested by them is the correct answer and answer suggested by the students is not the correct answer, this Court cannot sit in judgment over the said expert body as an Appellate Authority and undertake an exercise to find out which is the correct answer, as this Court has neither the expertise nor the infrastructure to do the same.”
It is always directed to seek opinion instead forming an opinion by the court itself. In the earlier writ petition, the petitioner was directed to make a representation to the respondents in regard to question in dispute. The representation aforesaid has been decided by the respondents by a detail order. The opinion formed therein has been challenged by the petitioner but I find that not only the jurisdiction of this court is limited to cause interference in the opinion of the expert moreso when decision of the representation cannot be said wrong apparently on the face of record. In view of the above and looking to the limited jurisdiction of this court to cause interference in the opinion of the expert, I do not find that prayer in the writ petition can be granted.
The writ petition so as stay application are accordingly dismissed.
[M.N.BHANDARI], J.
FRBOHRA/734CWP2014.doc
Certificate:
“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”
FATEH RAJ BOHRA, SR.P.A
