Dismissed

Abdur Rafique v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Feb 2018WP(C)/2893/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought production of TET 2011 answer scripts and relaxation for Physically Handicapped quota despite acquiring disability after the exam. Court noted script production but rejected quota claim due to non-application at the time of exam.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for considering petitioner as Physically Handicapped candidate for past TET was rejected. Petition disposed of.

Abdur Rafique Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010007102013

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 2893/2013

¶5

1:ABDUR RAFIQUE

¶6

S/O- LT. ABDUL MANNAN, R/O VILL.- BAGAHARBARI, P.O.- GOLANDI, P.S.DALGAON, DIST.- DARRANG, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS

¶9

REP. BY COMMISSIONER and SECY., ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY- 6, ASSAM.

¶10

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI.

¶11

3:THE MEMBER SECRETARY EMPOWERED COMMITTEE TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM.

¶12

4:THE MISSION DIRECTOR AXOM SARBA SIKSHA ABHIJAN MISSION KAHILIPARA GHY- 19 ASSAM

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS.P GOSWAMI

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SSA

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

¶18

13.02.2018

¶19

Heard Ms. N Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. PN Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. S Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, SSA, for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶20

The petitioner is a graduate in Arts and appeared in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 2011 that was held on 10.1.2012 with regard to qualifying/eligibility test for the post of Assistant Teacher in the Elementary School of the State as required under the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. In the said examination, the petitioner obtained total 80 marks out of 150 for Upper Primary and 85 out of 150 for Lower Primary where 90 marks is the minimum qualifying marks for General Category and 83 is the minimum qualifying marks for the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/MOBC/Physically Handicapped candidates. As the petitioner believed that mark was allotted to him wrongly in said Examination held as per OMR process, as such by this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to produce his original answer scripts in OMR as well as the booklet of the petitioner submitted by the authorities of the TET Examination held on 10.1.2012.

¶21

Pursuant to the orders passed earlier on 5.5.2014 and 28.7.2017, Mr. S Sarma, Standing Counsel, SSA appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 has produced the original answer scripts as well as the booklet of the petitioner which was duly verified by the petitioner himself in presence of his counsel and he did not find any imparity or illegality in allotting marks in his OMR sheet in TET Examination that was held on 10.1.2012.

¶22

However, at this stage, a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner that he is physically handicapped person with 40% disability and since 83 is the minimum qualifying marks for such Physically Handicapped candidates, he should be considered as a TET passed candidate in the TET Examination held on 10.1.2012.

¶23

As per the provisions of the TET, the minimum qualifying marks for such Physically Handicapped candidate is 83 out of total marks of 150 and the petitioner in the said

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

examination obtained only 80 marks out of 150 marks for upper primary level and 85 marks out of 150 marks for Lower Primary Level. However, on being enquired, the petitioner submits that after appearing in the TET Examination held on 10.1.2012, he met with an accident and thereafter, suffered with 40% of the disability and that he did not apply for the TET Examination 2011 held on 10.1.2012 under the Physically Handicapped quota.

¶26

Considering the above, petitioner’s prayer for considering him as a Physically Handicapped candidate for the TET Examination 2011 held in January, 2012, cannot be considered.

¶27

However, it is made clear that if as per the rules and provisions of TET Examination, the petitioner appears for such TET examination under the Physically Handicapped quota, the same shall be considered by the concerned authority in accordance with law and the relevant rules in that regard.

¶28

This writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Abdur Rafique v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdur Rafique v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smti Asia Begum Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Santanu Kumar Dutta and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Prafulla Kr. Nath and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Rita Devi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Nayan Jyoti Goswami Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Smti Urmila Saikia Baishya Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.