TET Candidate With 89.907 Marks Misses Cutoff As Chhattisgarh HC Rejects Rounding Without A Rule And UNIVAC Answer Challenge

Garima appeared in the Chhattisgarh Teacher Eligibility Test, 2022 (TET-2022), which required candidates in the Unreserved Category to obtain 90 marks out of 150.

She received 89.907 marks.

In Question No. 145, she had selected Option C—UNIVAC.

Although the provisional answer key identified UNIVAC as correct, the final key identified Option B—ENIAC as correct, resulting in the denial of that mark.

She sought both recognition of Option C as correct and treatment of 89.907 marks as 90 by rounding off.

The Court considered the challenge to the final answer key and the rounding-off claim separately.

Under Article 226, courts exercise restraint in reviewing academic and examination decisions.

Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 357, holds that where re-evaluation is not provided for, judicial interference is permissible only in rare or exceptional cases where a material error is demonstrated clearly, without inferential reasoning; the key is ordinarily presumed correct, and doubt benefits the examination authority.

Chief General Manager, BSNL v. M.J. Paul, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 414, reiterates that courts should not substitute their assessment for that of the competent authority, particularly where re-evaluation is not provided for.

A candidate has no right to rounding off marks to satisfy a minimum qualifying threshold unless the governing rules, advertisement, or examination scheme authorises it.

The petitioner’s materials describing UNIVAC as the first commercial or commercially successful computer did not establish that the expert authority’s final answer, ENIAC, was manifestly erroneous.

Deciding between the competing interpretations of “first commercial computer” would require the Court to undertake an impermissible academic assessment.

Nor did the provisional key create an indefeasible right to retain its answer, since objections were invited to permit reconsideration before finalisation.

As to rounding, the petitioner had not obtained the prescribed 90 marks, and no applicable provision authorised rounding off.

The Court distinguished Vidhata Gupta (Minor) v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others as an order based on its particular circumstances, not a general rule requiring rounding in every case.

It dismissed the writ petition and clarified that dismissal would not prevent her from participating in future examinations or selection processes for which she is otherwise eligible.