IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6919 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.10.2011 Hans Raj and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. GPS Bal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct the Board of School Education, Haryana to 'revise' the result of the 'School Teachers Eligibility Test' (STET) examination conducted on 12.12.2009 for recruitment to the posts of Elementary Teachers (J.B.T.) by awarding marks for the correct answers as per the report of the Subject Experts which the petitioners are said to have obtained under the Right to Information Act on 17.01.2011. The question to whether the Court can issue such a direction for revision of the result on the assumption that the 'answer key' to the question-paper was incorrectly prepared, is no longer res- integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission V. Mukesh Thakur and another (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 759, held as follows:- “ In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the CWP No. 6919 of 2011(O&M) [2] Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.” A learned Single Judge of this Court also dealt with an identical issue in Civil Writ Petition No. 7232 of 2010 (Jyotika Nagil and others V. The State of Haryana and others) decided on 01.12.2010 wherein also the writ petitioners sought the revision of their result of STET examination. The writ petition was dismissed observing that:- “The danger involved in adopting such a mode can very well be demonstrated from the stand taken by the respondents. Respondents would rely upon the report given by experts to vouchsafe that the answers given in the key answers are correct, which are stated to be incorrect and would urge that these answers are rather correct. The justification as offered in Annexure R2/1 can not be easily ignored, as has been exemplified by making reference to one of the answers given in the options, which is stated to be incorrect. I am, thus, of the considered opinion that the prayer made in the writ petitions is beyond the scope of judicial review and direction as prayed for can not be allowed in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As per the clear position of law as enunciated and noticed above, it is not within the CWP No. 6919 of 2011 [3] domain of this court to examine the question papers or the answer sheets to notice any discrepancies or inconsistencies either in setting the questions or evaluation thereof. The question paper as set was equally applicable to all the candidates, who appeared in the exam. No particular prejudice would have been caused to the petitioner in any case. It is certainly not within the jurisdiction of this court to see if any question has been asked out of syllabus or some answers are required to be corrected or if some grace marks are to be awarded. The prayer made in the writ petition would be beyond the scope of judicial parameter for this Court to interfere.” Following the aforecited views, I do not find any ground to direct the respondents to revise the result as sought by the petitioners. Dismissed. 13.10.2011 (SURYA KANT) 'ravinder' JUDGE