On HC order, TET result revised after six years

Balwant Garg

Tribune News Service

Faridkot, October 26

The State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), Punjab, has revised the results of 1,28,666 candidates who had appeared for the Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test (PSTET) in July 2011.

Over six years after the conduct of the PSTET for 3,442 posts of primary and elementary teachers in government schools of the state, the result was revised yesterday on the directions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

In the last six years, there was a dossier of writ petitions in the High Court challenging answer key for four questions out of total 150 questions in the test.

Claiming that the answer key to these four questions was wrong, many of the candidates in PSTET-2011 had demanded the High Court to grant them benefit of four marks in respect of these four questions.

Instead of giving relief only to the candidates who have filed writ petitions in the High Court, the court on September 25 issued orders to grant relief in respect of these four questions to every candidate.

The court had directed the SCERT to review the answers of all examinees and give necessary benefit of four wrong questions to all of them who were entitled for the same without waiting for them to file writ petitions.

”This revision of result for all candidates is more pertinent so that all qualified candidates after the revision could get benefit of the new posts of teachers advertised by the state government this month,” the High Court said in its order.

To qualify the PSTET, a general category candidate has to secure 90 marks out of total 150. For all reserve categories, the score of 82 marks is compulsory to qualify the test. While many successful candidates got jobs in 2011, others were fighting for the benefit of four marks to qualify this test.

While the duration of validity and active life of PSTET for purposes of seeking government job is seven years, a large number of candidates were fighting their cases in the High Court for the last six years to get the revision of their result for the wrong answer key.

The High Court has blamed the state government for its abysmally pathetic response in settling the dispute over four questions. There was no attempt of the State to respond to a plea that the key answers were wrong and that any of the questions were vague by making an objective appraisal of the grievance by entrusting the task of appraisal to some expert body and elicit its response, the court observed.