Statutory Rules and NCTE Guidelines Override Erroneous Examination Instructions Proposing Negative Marking in Teacher Eligibility Tests.

The West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission (the Commission) notified the 7th State Level Selection Test (SLST) 2023 for recruitment of Assistant Teachers, including the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for various classes.

The guidelines and OMR booklets issued to candidates explicitly stated that a negative marking system would apply (one mark deducted for every two wrong answers).

Following the publication of results on 21.12.2024, the Commission issued a clarification notice on 24.12.2024, stating that OMR sheets were actually evaluated without negative marking to comply with NCTE Rules.

The petitioners, who were unsuccessful, challenged this notification, arguing that the "rules of the game" were changed after the process began and that they were prejudiced because they refrained from attempting doubtful questions due to the negative marking warning.

The court primarily applied the principle that statutory rules override contrary terms in an advertisement, as held in Ashish Kumar v. State of UP and Union of India v. Uzair Imran.

It relied on the "mistake correction" doctrine from Union of India v. Narendra Singh, which posits that administrative errors can be corrected through due process.

Regarding minority institutions, the court applied Sk. Mohd. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah, which upheld the Commission's authority to select teachers for Madrasahs.

Rule 2(xxviii) of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Recruitment Rules, 2023, defines "TET" as a test conducted per NCTE guidelines, and Clause 6 of the NCTE guidelines expressly prohibits negative marking in TET.

The court reasoned that although the advertisement and booklets erroneously mentioned negative marking, the Commission was statutorily bound by Rule 2(xxviii) of the 2023 Rules to conduct the TET as per NCTE guidelines, which strictly forbid negative marking.

Applying Ashish Kumar, the court held that any part of an advertisement contrary to statutory rules must give way to the law.

The court rejected the "change of rules" argument, noting that the NCTE rules existed prior to the advertisement; thus, the Commission was merely correcting a clerical error to ensure conformity with the law.

Regarding prejudice, the court found that since the "no negative marking" policy was applied uniformly to all candidates, there was no discrimination.

Furthermore, the court noted that petitioners who participate in an examination without protest are generally estopped from challenging the validity of the process after receiving unfavourable results.

On Issue 2, the court held that the evaluation without negative marking was a valid correction of a mistake to align with statutory mandates.

The court held that an erroneous advertisement cannot create a right to have the law ignored. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, the impugned notification was upheld, and all interim orders were vacated.