Petitioner challenged the CET result selection for primary shikshan sevaks, citing errors in the answer key affecting marks. The court examined the key, noted the petitioner scored 108 against a 146 cut-off, and rejected the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp3252-11.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3252/2011
Kakasaheb S/o Rajendra Mane Age 23 years, Occ-Student R/o A-p Ansorda Tq. Dist.Osmanabad.
.. Petitioner
Versus
[Copy to be served on the Govt.Pleader,High Court at Aurangabad]
2] Maharashtra Rajya Pareeksha Parishad 17, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Pune-411 001 Through The Commissioner. ... Respondents
Mr.C.V.Dharurkar, h/f Shri R.J.Godbole,Adv.for petitioner. Mr.S.K.Kadam.AGP for Respondent no.1 Shri A.R.Nikam,Adv.for Respondent no.2
2 wp3252-11.odt
CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL AND T.V.NALAWADE, JJ.
DATE : 15th DECEMBER, 2011
ORAL ORDER : [PER NALAWADE,J.]
1] The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for giving direction to the respondents to make some corrections in the result of Common Entrance Test [for short CET] which was held for recruitment of the post of primary shikshan sevaks. Both sides are heard.
2] The petitioner had appeared for the aforesaid test. There were 200 questions and 200 marks were to be given for all the correct answers. The candidates were to be selected on the basis of merit. It was necessary for every candidate to secure 50% marks in two subjects like Science and Mathematics and it was also necessary to secure aggregate 50% marks. The questions were on subjects like Science, Maths and other subjects.
wp3252-11.odt
3
3] It is the case of petitioner that in model answer key, there
were mistakes and so there was no possibility of assessment of question no.73, 121, 122, 144 and 165. It is contended that the circles were not made dark in respect of these questions in the answer key. It is contended that the answer key in respect of question at Sr.Nos.41 and 59 was also wrong as the answers shown in the key are apparently wrong. It is contended that in Writ Petition No.5994/10 and other Writ Petitions filed before Principal seat, these mistakes are noted by High Court. It is contended that the answers to questions 31 and 196 are also wrongly considered in the key and in view of these circumstances the marks need to be given out of 193 instead of 200 marks. It is contended that in view of these circumstances, the petitioner has secured 50% marks in Science and Maths subjects and he has also secured 50% marks out of 193 marks. In view of these alleged circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for giving direction to respondents to include his name in the select list of the candidates finalized for recruitment to the post of teacher.
wp3252-11.odt
4
4] This Court has perused copy of “Key” produced by the
petitioner and also copies of various orders made by this Court, Principal seat in respect of same recruitment test. It can be said that in the Key, the circles are not make dark in respect of question nos.73, 121, 122 and 165. Even if the further contention that the answers in respect of question nos.41 and 59 are wrongly mentioned in Key is accepted, the petitioner will have to secure more than cut off marks out of the remaining 194 marks. Admittedly, the petitioner could secure only 108 marks and the cut off marks for open category to which the petitioner belongs are 146. In view of these circumstances, this Court finds that no case
is made out for interference and so the Petition stands rejected.
(T.V.NALAWADE, J.)
(NARESH H. PATIL,J.)
umg/wp3252-11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the CET result on grounds of alleged errors in the model answer key.
Whether the petitioner can be selected for the post of primary shikshan sevaks despite falling short of the cut-off marks.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kakasaheb S/o Rajendra Mane
The State of Maharashtra School Education and Sports Department
Maharashtra Rajya Pareeksha Parishad
NARESH H. PATIL
T. V. NALAWADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
