Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—In this bunch of more than one and half dozen writ petitions aggrieved by test conducted by Secondary Education Board Allahabad, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) termed as “U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test 2011”, the petitioners have approached this Court by means of these writ petitions, assailing their failure on various grounds. Some broad issues are as under:

I. Several questions having multiple options were wrong in the sense that none of the options was correct answer to the concerned question.

II. Some of the questions were such where according to model answers subsequently disclosed by examining body, the option disclosed to be correct was actually incorrect. Instead some other answer was correct. Hence, the questions have been evaluated with wrong answers, following mistake committed in model key answers prepared by the Board.

III. The candidates were actually present and had appeared in the examination but were wrongly shown absent.

IV. More than one candidate were provided same roll number which has influenced their result.

V. Answer booklet of one series had been examined with model answer sheets of different series resulting in wrong evaluation/assessment of candidates’ answer sheets.

2. There are certain minor individual complaints also with regard to assessment, declaration of result etc.

3. Considering volume of cases coming to this Court raising similar complaints some of which are referred above and magnitude of the test conducted by the Board, this Court found that it would be in the interest of public at large if these matters are disposed of at the earliest and in this view of the matter with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Court permitted them to address Court on various aspects based on their averments contained in their respective writ petitions in general.

4. So far as the Board is concerned, learned Standing Counsel chose not to file counter-affidavit and instead had the benefit of presence of Secretary of the Board with relevant information and assisted the Court expressing Board’s anxiety also of expeditious disposal of the matter in such a manner so that grievances of the petitioners are attended in an effective and objective manner and all these matters may settle finally. Regarding individual dispute relating to minor mistakes in assessment of answer sheets it was suggested that the Board shall entertain complaints made by individual candidates specifically and after looking into record and examining threadbare, the candidates shall be informed of the consequences. In this context, the only anxiety expressed by the Board is that this indulgence cannot be allowed for an indefinite period and, therefore, the Court may provide any reasonable time within which candidates aggrieved if any, may approach the Board with their complaints which shall be attended by it. Sri Neeraj Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, however, also informed the Court that the Board had already been receiving and attending complaints of candidates and had also examined the same in detail. He also informed that with regard to discrepancies in model key answers the complaints were attended by Board and they constituting a committee of experts who examined all the answer sheets threadbare and thereafter submitted their report. It has been explained by him that there were three sets of examinations namely;

(I) Junior Primary Level Examination (Class I to V) (hereinafter referred to “J.L.E.”

(II) Senior Primary Level Examination (Class VI to VIII) (Science) (hereinafter referred to “S.L.E.(S)”

(III) Senior Primary Level Examination (Class VI to VIII) (Arts)(hereinafter referred to “J.L.E.(A)”

He said that in every set of these examinations, answer sheets of four series were circulated to examinees which are Series ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’. The total number of questions in one set were 150. Questions set up in all the series of one kind of examination are same but their