Courts should exercise restraint in interfering with the expert opinion on answer keys and presume the correctness of the key answers.

COMMON ORDER

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the notification dated 07.03.2022 in notification No.1 of 2022, challenging the result published by the third respondent dated 29.03.2023 in pursuant to the said notification, challenging the answer key in respect of some of the questions and for direction to the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners to award grace marks for the wrong questions.

2. The second respondent issued notification vide Advertisement No.1 of 2022 dated 07.03.2022 inviting applications from eligible candidates for Teacher Eligibility Test Paper 1 and Paper II for the year 2022. All the petitioners applied and the second respondent conducted examination for Paper I and Paper II. After examination, on 22.02.2023, the second respondent had released the tentative key answers with the master question paper in PDF form. The candidates were instructed to submit their respective objections or representations with regards to the answer key. Accordingly, the candidates submitted their objections or representations within a stipulated time i.e. from 22.02.2023 to 25.02.2023. All the petitioners have raised their objections and also submitted their representations with regard to their respective questions and answer keys.

3. Insofar as the petitioner in WP.No.11303 of 2023, she raised objections for the answer keys of questions serial Nos.14, 35, 65, 69, 73, 99, 103, 114 and 139 in paper-II. Likewise the petitioner in WP.No.12989 of 2023 raised objections insofar as the answer keys of question Nos.81, 104 and 144 of paper-II. The petitioner in WP.No.15627 of 2023 raised objections for the answer keys of questions Nos.27 & 70 of paper II, the petitioner in WP.No.15603 of 2023 raised objections in respect of the answer keys of questions Nos.81 & 104 of paper II and the petitioners in WP.Nos.22132 & 22134 of 2023 raised objections in respect of the answer keys of question Nos.5, 74 & 79 of paper II.

4. The Teachers Recruitment Board had received 16409 objections in respect of 1346 questions in paper II from 3341 candidates including the petitioners herein. All the objections were taken for screening by respective subject experts. The candidates who submitted the proof from textbooks alone were considered by experts with the answer keys. The guides, correspondence course materials and non standard reference books were not entertained by Teachers Recruitment Board. Further, mere objections and representations were not considered without any evidence. Out of 16409 objections, 375 objections for paper II were scrutinised by the experts. Maximum objections were raised in respect of 87 questions by maximum candidates of 82. Totally 106 subject experts were deputed from various Government educational institutions and scrutinised their objections. The revised and final answer key have been arrived by experts. The opinion of the subject experts is final and further objections or representations on the answer key will not be entertained by the Board. Accordingly, some of the objections / representations were accepted and those were awarded marks. Accordingly, all the petitioners scored 81 marks. All the petitioners belong to BC category and they ought to have scored 82 marks to get qualified in the Teachers Recruitment Test. Though they were awarded marks as per their objections, they were not qualified in the Teacher Eligibility Test.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that if their objections for their respective questions were properly considered by the experts, they would have scored more than 82 marks and they will be qualified in the Teacher Eligibility Test. However, their objections were not considered properly by comparing the materials furnished along with their objections. They also produced materials to justify their objections for their respective answer keys. This Court cannot go into the materials produced before this Court to justify their o