1. The petitioner herein has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 05.12.2011 passed by the respondent and further to direct the respondent to recheck/reassess the answer sheet of the petitioner at the earliest.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner who is working as a teacher with the respondent no. 2 school had appeared for the online examination of TAT (Teacher Aptitude Test) for the post of 'Head Master Principal' wherein he was declared as disqualified. The petitioner approached the respondent authority by way of application for rechecking/reassessment of his answer sheet but the same was rejected vide order dated 05.12.2011.
3. Mr.
Y.J. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the application of the petitioner for rechecking was rejected by the respondent authorities on the ground that there is no statutory provision laid down for rechecking. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Others reported in 2011 STPL (Web) 685 SC and contended that the candidate examinee was right to have his answer books inspected by himself.
4. Mr.
Oza, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent authority has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner as there is no statutory provision as provided vide notification dated 11.02.2011 for rechecking or reassessment of the answer sheets. He contended that the decision relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner shall not be applicable on the facts of the present case and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and having perused the documents on record, this Court is of the opinion that the contention raised by learned advocate for the respondent deserves consideration. Admittedly, there is no rule provided for rechecking or reassessment of the answer sheets. The petitioner is a teacher and has appeared for departmental exam for the post of 'Head Master Principal'. The decision relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Another (supra) shall also not be applicable to the present case inasmuch as the Apex Court in the said case has considered the case of a student of a school under the RTI act which is not the case herein. The impugned order passed by the respondent authority is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court.
6. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top