UPTET 2013 : Result Correction writ in Allahabad High court

UPTET 2013 : Result Correction writ in Allahabad High court

UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher Eligibility Test Updates / Teacher Recruitment News   
 Tags : uptet 2013, UPTET 2013 RESULT, NCTE, Urdu Teacher,

Read more: http://joinuptet.blogspot.com/#ixzz2zgO6apSU

यू पी टी ई टी 2013 में एक लड़की के 88  मार्क्स आने पर , इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट में याचिका डाली गयी की
परीक्षा में प्रश्न त्रुटि पूर्ण थे ,
कोर्ट ने शिक्षा  विभाग को गलती सुधारने के लिए हलफनामा दाखिल करने को बोला है और हलफनामा दाखिल होने के १ महीने के भीतर आवश्यक कार्यवाही करने को बोला है




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. - 3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 47064 of 2013

Petitioner :- Ashmin Jahan
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.Yadav

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner applied for the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test, 2013 held on 27.06.2013 and appeared in the written examination, but she was declared unsuccessful, having secured only 88 marks as against requisite cut off mark i.e. 90 marks.
According to the petitioner, the answers of questions no. 49 & 78 of Series-D, as given in the key answer sheet prepared by the respondents, were not correct. The averments made in this regard, by the petitioner in paragraphs 18 to 24 of the writ petition, are quoted below:
"18. That question nos. 49 and 78 are questions pertaining to Part-II (Urdu Comprehension) (Prose and Poetry) and Part-III pertaining to Urdu Grammar. Both the said questions are their multiple choice answers are indicated in the question paper in Urdu language.
19. That for convenience the Hindi translation of question no. 49 is as follows:
" 49- ;g eflZ;k fdl 'kk;j dk gS
1- ehj vuhl]
2- fetZk nchj]
3- ehj tehj]
4- ehj [kyhQ-
20. That according to the petitioner the correct answer to Question No. 49 is option no. 1 but according to the key answer the correct answer to the said question has been treated to be Option No. 2. In support of the aforesaid the petitioner brings on record the extracts pertaining to Marsia Mir Anees as down loaded from the internet is annexed and marked as Annexure no. 7 to this writ petition.
21. That similarly the Hindi translation of Question No. 78 is extracted below:
78- cPpas yQ~t vklkuh ls lh[k ys mlds fy;s ge D;k bLrseky djrs gSa&
1- fdrkc nsuk]
2- fy[kkuk]
3- i    4- Iys dkMZ nsuk-
22. That according to the petitioner the correct answer to the said question is Option No. 4 and it is Option No. 4, which has been indicated by the petitioner. However, according to the respondents the correct answer to Question No. 78 is Option No. 3.
23. That by no stretch of imagination Option No. 3 can be treated to be the correct answer to Question No. 78 and in fact it is Option No. 4 which is the correct answer to the said question.
24. That in case the aforesaid three mistakes are rectified then marks secured by the petitioner would be 91 marks and the petitioner would be treated as having qualified the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test."

A perusal of the pleadings quoted above clearly indicates that as per the petitioner, in respect of Question No. 49, the correct answer was, the Option No. 1, but according to the key answer sheet, the answer was, Option No. 2. Similarly with regard to Question No. 78, as per the petitioner, the correct answer was, Option No. 4, whereas, as per the key answer sheet, the answer was, Option No. 3.
The respondents have filed their counter affidavit and in paragraph 14 thereof they have admitted the fact that the answers given in the key answer sheet as prepared by the subject expert, were not correct and the contentions of the petitioner in that regard are correct. The contents of paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit filed by the State are quoted herein-below:
14- ;g fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj 24 esa of.kZr dFku ds laca/k esa izfroknh mRrjnkrk dk dguk gS fd mRrj izns'k f'k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk 2013 esa izkFkfed Lrj mnwZ Hkk"kk ds 11 iz'uksa ij vkifRr djrs gq, ,d vU; ;kfpdk la[;k 5836 (,e0,l0)@2013 [kq'khZn vkye [kWk o vU; cuke mRrj izns'k jkT; o vU; nkf[ky dh x;hA bl ;kfpdk ds nkf[ky gksus ds ckn iqu% fo"k;&fo'ks"kK ls tWkp djk;h x;h ftlesa fo"k;&fo'ks"kK }kjk ;g ekuk x;k gS fd iz'u la[;k lhjht Mh ds iz'u la[;k 49 o 78 dk okLrfod lgh mRrj dze'k% fodYi la[;k 01 o 04 gS] bl izdkj igys fo"k;&fo'ks"kK }kjk tks fjiksVZ nh x;h Fkh og xyr gSA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds voyksdukFkZ fo"k; fo'ks"kK dh uohu fjiksVZ dh Nk;kizfr bl izfr'kiFki= ds lkFk layXud lh0,0&4 ds :i esa layXu dh tk jgh gSA bl iz'u dk mRrj ;kph }kjk dze'k% fodYi la[;k 01 o 04 Hkjk gS] tks la'kksf/kr fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj lgh gS] bl izdkj ;kph ds 90 vad gks tk;saxs] ;kph dk ;g dguk gS fd vxj xyrh dks lgh dj fn;k tk;s rks muds 91 vad gks tk;saxs lgh ugha gS
From the aforesaid averments, it is evident that another Writ Petition No. 5836 (M.S.) of 2013 was filed by another unsuccessful candidate raising objections regarding answers of 11 questions in respect of the U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test, 2013. After filing of the said petition, the matter was re-examined and it was accepted by the subject expert that the answers as contained in the key answer sheet in respect of Questions No.49 & 78 of Series-D, were incorrect and correct answers were, Options No.1 & 4, respectively. The report of the earlier subject expert was incorrect. The subsequent report of the subject expert dated 28.10.2013, contained in Annexure C.A-4 to the counter affidavit, supports the averments made in para-14 of the counter affidavit.
In view of above, for these two questions, petitioner will get increase of 2 marks i.e. 1 mark for each question and thus, the aggregate of her marks would now come to 90, which is the cut off mark prescribed for the purpose of selection. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to be declared successful.
In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ of Mandamus is issued to the respondents to rectify the mistakes committed by them, in the light of averments made in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit and take all consequential actions as may be required by law, treating the petitioner as successful in U.P. Teacher Eligibility Test (Primary level for Urdu language), 2013, within a period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before them.
Order Date :- 16.4.2014
Kst/-