Recently, the Calcutta High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging a notification issued by the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission clarifying that no negative marking had been applied in the evaluation of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) answer sheets. The dispute arose because the examination guidelines and question booklet indicated that one mark would be deducted for every two incorrect answers, whereas the Commission later clarified that the evaluation had been conducted without negative marking in accordance with NCTE norms.
Brief facts:
The case stemmed from a challenge to the evaluation process adopted in a Teacher Eligibility Test conducted for recruitment to teaching posts in Madrasahs. The Petitioners contended that the examination guidelines and question booklet prescribed negative marking for incorrect answers, prompting them to attempt the examination cautiously. However, after the results were declared, the recruiting authority issued a clarification stating that no negative marking had been applied during evaluation in accordance with the applicable NCTE norms. Aggrieved by what they alleged was a post-examination change in the evaluation criteria, the Petitioners approached the High Court seeking to challenge the validity of the clarification and the selection process conducted on that basis.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioners argued that both the examination guidelines and question booklet expressly provided for negative marking, and they had structured their attempts accordingly. They contended that had they known there would be no negative marking, they would have attempted more questions and potentially secured higher marks. It was further argued that the Commission could not alter the rules of the examination after the examination process had commenced. The Petitioners also contended that the NCTE guidelines flowed from the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which, according to them, was inapplicable to minority educational institutions such as Madrasahs. They therefore sought either re-evaluation by applying negative marking or cancellation of the selection process and a fresh examination.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Commission maintained that the reference to negative marking in the advertisement and examination materials was an inadvertent error. The Counsel argued that under the applicable West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Recruitment (Selection and Recommendation of Persons for appointment and Transfer to the Post of Teacher and Non- Teaching Staff) Rules, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2023’), TET is required to be conducted in accordance with NCTE guidelines, which expressly prohibit negative marking. The Commission further contended that where an advertisement conflicts with statutory rules, the statutory rules must prevail. The Counsel submitted that the notification merely clarified that the evaluation had been carried out in accordance with the governing legal framework. The Commission also argued that the Petitioners suffered no prejudice because the absence of negative marking applied uniformly to all candidates and, in fact, benefited them. Additionally, it contended that candidates who participated in the examination without objection could not challenge the process only after receiving an unfavourable result.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed, “a candidate when appeared in any competitive examination, he was expected to know about its Constitution and validity of examination, hence, he cannot assail its Constitution and validity of examination later on.” The Court noted that the Petitioners had participated in the examination without raising any objection regarding the applicability of the NCTE guidelines and, having subjected themselves to the selection process, could not challenge the same after being unsuccessful.
The Bench held, “any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription.” The Bench observed that the NCTE guidelines governing TET examinations expressly prohibit negative marking and, therefore, the reference to negative marking in the advertisement and examination instructions was merely an error that could not override the statutory framework.
The Court noted, “error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate.” The Bench observed that recruitment must be conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable Rules and that an erroneous stipulation in an advertisement cannot confer any enforceable right contrary to statutory prescriptions.
The Court further held, “mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due process of law.” The Bench observed that the Commission's notification clarifying the absence of negative marking did not amount to a change in the rules of the examination but merely corrected an inadvertent error to ensure compliance with the NCTE guidelines that were already in force when the advertisement was issued.
The Bench observed, “there cannot be any manner of doubt that the subsequent notification dated 24th December, 2024... does not contravenes the rules rather it followed the NCTE rules which excludes negative marking in the TET examination.” The Bench therefore concluded that the Commission had acted in accordance with the governing statutory framework and that the challenge to the notification was without merit.
The decision of the Court:
The Court dismissed all the writ petitions, holding that the Commission was bound to follow NCTE guidelines, which prohibit negative marking in TET examinations. It concluded that the reference to negative marking in the advertisement was merely an inadvertent error, that the subsequent clarification did not amount to changing the rules of the examination, and that no prejudice or discrimination had been caused to the Petitioners. All interim orders were vacated, and the connected applications were disposed of.
Case Title: Md. Nurul Hasan Mondal & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.A. 688 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bivas Pattanayak
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Kamalesh Bhattacharyya, Adv. Anindya Bhattacharyya
Advocate for the Respondent: ld. AGPSupriyo Chattopadhyay, Adv. Sabyasachi Mondal
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
