Show answer sheets to 2014 candidates: Calcutta HC

The Board of Primary Education said on Friday that it would comply with the court order.

Shantanu Sit, one of the candidates who took the exam that year, had approached the court, flagging “doubts” over the TET 2014 results. He demanded that the OMR sheet or answersheet should be shown. As many as 27 other candidates also made the same demand in the court. They claimed that the OMR sheets would make it clear what the exact score of each candidate was.

Manik Bhattacharya, president of the Board of Primary Education, claims that appointments are being made ensuring transparency. A copy of OMR would be provided along with the appropriate application through speed post, added Bhattacharya.

In December last year, the High Court had, after examining the documents of Shantanu Sit and others, directed the board to conduct interviews. However, the board claimed that these they did not pass the written test (TET). The candidates’ demand that the OMR sheet or answer sheet be shown to them was rejected by the board, which pointed out that this was against the rules. They subsequently approached the High Court.

The board recently published a list of 738 names in connection with the 2014 TET for selection of primary teachers. A lawsuit was filed a day after the list was released. The TET exam that took place in 2014 triggered a controversy over some “mistakes” in some questions in the paper. Several candidates moved the Calcutta High Court in this regard. After hearing of the case, the court ordered on December 20 last year and according to the order, 738 names were published on behalf of the Board. But there were also allegations of being mistakes. Some candidates again approached the High Court.

In 2018, Justice Samapti Chatterjee of the Calcutta High Court directed that those who answered the wrong questions should be given full marks for the errors in the question papers of the 2014 TET examination. But allegations surfaced that the board did not follow the order and which the court deems to be tantamount to contempt of court. A case was also filed against the board president. The president of the board was instructed to pay a fine to each applicant.