Dismissed

Mahavir Dangi and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Jharkhand HC5 Jan 2015WPC/3757/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging the rejection of three petitioners' TET 2012 applications due to leaving the 'Post' field blank. The Court upheld the rejection, citing the automated, computerized evaluation system and the impracticality of manual scrutiny given the volume of candidates.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed.

Mahavir Dangi and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Education and Admissions | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No.3757 of 2013

¶4

Mahavir Dangi, S/o Late Ramlal Mahto,

¶5

R/o Village Lemboiya, P.S. Pathalgadda, District- Chatra

¶6

Manoj Dangi , S/o Laldhan Dangi R/o Village Nawadih, P.S. Pathalgadda, District- Chatra

¶7

Vidya Sagar Dangi, S/o Bodhi Mahto, R/o Village Tetariya, P.S. Pathalgada, District Chatra

¶8

... ... Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

1.State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Human Resource Department, Ranchi

¶11

The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi … ... Respondents

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶13

For the Petitioners : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, G.A. Mr. Kaustav Panda, J.C. to G.A. For the J.A.C. : Mr. M. S. Anwar, Sr. Advocate

¶14

05/05.01.2015 Seeking direction upon the respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council for publication of result of the petitioners who have appeared in TET-2012 Examination, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶15

The petitioners, pursuant to advertisement dated 18.11.2012 for Teachers Eligibility Test for primary level (Class-1 to V) and (Class- VI to VIII) appeared in the examination which was conducted on 26.04.2013. However the result of the petitioners was not published. In the website of Jharkhand Academic Council, the status of the application of the petitioners has been shown rejected on the ground of “ Post Blank In Form”. In these facts, the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶16

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the admit card which has been issued to the petitioners clearly records the name of post for which the petitioners appeared in the examination and therefore, the ground for rejection of the application form cannot sustain.

¶18

Mr. M. S. Anwar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Academic Council submits that the entire system of evaluation of answer-sheets (O.M.R. Sheet) is completely computerized and no manual interference is possible. Since, the petitioners failed to fill up the name of the post, their answer-sheets were not evaluated. The learned Senior counsel refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and submits that rejection of the application form on the ground of incomplete filling up of the application form/answer-sheet and also in cases where the requisite fields were not darkened, has been upheld.

¶19

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

¶20

It is common knowledge that in TET examinations thousand of candidates appear. It is not in dispute that the system of evaluation of the answer-sheets is completely computerized and it has rightly been submitted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent-J.A.C. that no manual interference is permissible. If the plea of the petitioners

¶21

¶22

is accepted, I am of the opinion that it would open a Pandora's box and as such, there may be 100 of cases of this nature which cannot be physically scrutinized by the Jharkhand Academic Council. I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶23

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶24

Satyarthi/

Mahavir Dangi and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahavir Dangi and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand and 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

Ms Triveni Engicons Pvt. Ltd. through One of Its Director Govind Pd Agrawal Vs Rural Works Department

City Square Project Pvt. Ltd. through Its Managing Director Kishor Kumar Mehta and Anr. Vs Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Marshal Topno Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Nawnit Kumar Dwivedi Vs District Administration

Parwati Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Zaidul Haque Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.