The Allahabad High Court has directed the principal secretary (Basic Education) to get all the OMR/answer sheets pertaining to Teachers’ Eligibility Test (TET)-2011 examined to identify such candidates, whose names had initially not appeared in the results but were later declared successful.
A single judge bench of Justice B Amit Sthalekar passed the order on October 8, while hearing a petition filed by Sarita Shukla and two others, through their counsel Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi. The petitioners have alleged that there were multiple anomalies and fraud in the results declared after the TET-2011, which was conducted for recruiting 72,000-odd primary teachers.
- BTET revised result 2017 declared at bsebonline.net, check cut-off marks here
- KTET 2017: Result declared, check scores at keralapareekshabhavan.in
- Bihar BTET 2017 revised results 2017 declared at bsebonline.net, steps to check
- TN TRB releases exam schedule for TN TET 2018, recruitment dates released for 3030 various posts
- UPTET: High Court dismisses pleas seeking evaluation of answer sheets
- Bihar BTET 2017: Revised answer keys out, download at bsebonline.net and biharboard.ac.in.
The petition had sought quashing of all the three results —- declared on November 25, 2011; November 30, 2011 and January 25, 2015 —- on the grounds that none of them could be considered free from anomalies. The alleged anomalies included unprecedented increase in the marks obtained by some candidates; some candidates, who were not even allotted roll numbers initially but were declared successful in the later results; and candidates, shown to be absent in the first result, being awarded marks and declared successful in the later results.
“We had found that between the first result declared on November 25, 2011, and the last one declared on January 25, 2015, there were at least 1,096 cases, in which names with fresh roll numbers had appeared even though no such roll numbers were allotted in the first result. Further, there were at least 68 cases where those marked absent in the first result, were declared successful in the last declared result,” Tripathi, the petitioners’ counsel, said.
Passing the order, the court said that the “writ petition is disposed at the admission stage itself” with a direction to the principal secretary, (Basic Education) “to scrutinise and examine all the OMR/answer sheets and also identify those cases, where it has come on record that the result of even those candidates have been declared, who have never appeared in the examinations”. The court ordered to complete the exercise within a period of four months.
The court also took note of the fact that a committee, headed by the chief secretary, had arrived at a conclusion that anomalies and irregularities were committed at several levels in the declaration of the results of the TET-2011. This included several wrong questions; questions with wrong answers; and questions being changed in different series of papers.
The TET-2011 had run into controversy as the results were declared within 12 days (on November 25, 201) of the examination being held on November 13, 201. Immediately, there were objections regarding the correctness of the answers.
The department concerned, instead of properly processing these objections, changed the results on its own and came up with another result on November 30, 2011. However, this, too, was disputed on various grounds.
Subsequently, the chief secretary’s committee, comprising six members, examined the matter and arrived at a conclusion in 2012 that the results were full of anomalies and there were apparent irregularities.
“In this backdrop, the government decided to do away with TET and give weightage to academic qualifications. The new system was again challenged and, later, the High Court held that TET was mandatory. The state government also approached the Supreme Court, which upheld the HC order. It also asked the HC to decide on the matter pertaining to anomalies and irregularities in the TET-2011 results. It was after this order that we approached the High Court,” said Tripathi.