Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/3050/2018 of RAJ KUMARI Vs HIMACHAL PRADESH BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND ANOTHER on 31 December 2018
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3050 of 2018 Decided on: 31.12.2018 Raj Kumari …Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education …Respondents and another Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 3050 of 2018
Decided on: 31.12.2018
Raj Kumari
…Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education …Respondentsand another
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice.The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.Whether approved for reporting?[1]
For the petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. Vir Bahadur Verma, Advocate.
Surya Kant, Chief Justice.(Oral)
The petitioner appeared in the TeachersEligibility Test (TET) of Arts conducted by the HimachalPradesh Board of School Education, Dharmshala on 8[th]September, 2018. The result has been declared andaccording to the petitioner, she had answered questions No.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2, 8, 56, 72 and 145 correctly but due to anomaly in the answer key in Hindi vis-a-vis English medium, her answershave not been correctly evaluated, depriving her the duemarks.
2. It goes without saying that such like issues areto be examined by an Expert Committee which may havebeen constituted by the Board to consider therepresentations, if any, received from the candidates againstthe answer key.
3. The petitioner is stated to have already represented the Board. In any case, we grant one moreopportunity to the petitioner to represent to the Boardalongwith supporting material with reference to questionsNo. 2, 8, 56, 72 and 145 and let such representation beplaced before the Expert Committee for an appropriatedecision. The Expert Committee will take its decision withina period of one month from the date of receipt of suchrepresentation.
4. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also standdisposed of.
(Surya Kant) Chief Justice
December 31, 2018 ( rajni )
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge