1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, Sri Seemant Singh, Sri Alok Mishra, Sri R.K. Pandey, Sri R.K. Singh, Sri Harikesh Srivastava and Sri Ritesh Srivastava for the petitioners and Sri S.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri S.K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Rishikant Rai, learned Brief Holder and Sri, Amit Manohar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri Brajesh Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. This bunch of writ petitions relate to the Uttar Pradesh Teachers Eligibility Test Examination-2018 (for short ‘U.P.T.E.T. Examination-2018’) conducted by the 2nd respondent.

3. The controversy as has travelled up to this Court through various writ petitions bunched hereinabove with Writ Petition No.-25791 of 2018 as a leading writ petition, on account of certain key answers published by respondent No.-2, correctness of which being questioned for either some of the questions being wrongly framed causing utter confusion to the examinees in choosing correct option as answer in multiple choice questions to those questions, or more than one option to be correct resulting in further confusion and further certain questions being out of syllabus.

4. Briefly stated the facts are that for conducting U.P.T.E.T. Examination-2018, the State Government had issued guidelines on 14th September, 2018 wherein it provided modalities to be adopted for conducting the said examination, eligibility for both lower primary and upper primary, the papers setting, syllabus etc. It also prescribed for constitution of the Committee at the District level with District Magistrate and its Chairman. It also provided for allotment of centres for conducting the examination etc. The consequential order was passed by the Secretary of the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Allahabad on 21st October, 2018 providing for examination in two parts and scheduled it to be held on 18th December, 2018. While in first part, the U.P.T.E.T. Examination-2018 was to be held in respect of primary level, in the second part of the day, it was for upper primary level.

5. In the present case, the petitioners are concerned only with the primary level of U.P.T.E.T. Examination-2018.

6. The examination as scheduled, was held on the date and time fixed and the candidates including the petitioners did appear.

7. The respondent examination conducting authority on 20th November, 2018 published the answer key giving the correct options to the multiple choice questions asked in different papers qua U.P.T.E.T. Examination-2018. As per the statement made by the Secretary of Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Allahabad who is present in Court, in all 99 objections were received from different candidates and they were placed before the team of subject experts who examined each of the objections.

8. Learned Additional Advocate General after due consultation with the Secretary of the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Allahabad informed the Court that question No.-38 of ‘C’ series on scrutiny was found to have two options as correct answer to it and so also the question No.-59 of the ‘C’ series it was found to have two options as correct answers. On a pointed query being made to the Secretary, he informed the Court that the marks have been allotted in both the questions No.- 38 and 59 (supra) to all such candidates who opted for either of the two correct options. The Secretary also stated before the Court that insofar as question No.-20 of ‘A’ series is concerned, on scrutiny it was found to be not properly framed and, accordingly, was deleted and one mark in respect of the said question was given to every candidate without exception. He contends that regarding remaining 96 questions in respect of which objections were received, the objections were found to be not tenable as according to the expert opinion those answers given in the answer key publishe