Yogesh Kumar And ORS v. State Of Punjab And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7953 of 2022 Date of Decision:- 20.04.2022 Yogesh Kumar and others ....Petitioner vs.

State of Punjab and others ....Respondents *** BEFORE :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL *** Present:- Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioners.

*** Sudhir Mittal, J. (Oral) The petitioners had applied for the Punjab State Teachers Eligibility Test-II, 2021 (PSTET-II) which was conducted on 24.12.2021. On conclusion of the test, an answer key was uploaded where-against certain objections were filed by other candidates. On receipt of the objections, a revised answer key was uploaded, according to which, the answer to question No.112 of Booklet Series "S" was revised. The correct answer was stated to be 'sons and daughters can get an equal share of family property'. The question was as under:- "According to the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2002 which of the following statements is true?"

The result was declared on 3.4.2022 and the petitioners failed to qualify as they secured one mark less than the prescribed benchmark. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the revised answer to question No.112 aforementioned was incorrect. In fact the answer POONAM RATHORE 2022.04.22 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

C.W.P. No. 7953 of 2022 -2- could have been "sons and daughters can get an equal share of family property" or "sons, daughters and their mothers can get an equal share of family property." The term 'family property' is also ambiguous and, thus, the petitioners who have selected the latter option i.e. "sons, daughters and their mothers can get an equal share of family property" should get benefit of one mark.

It may be noted that before the result was declared, the revised answer key was uploaded. The petitioners never objected to the revised answer to question No.112 aforementioned and thus, representation on 11.04.2022 would not be material. Moreover, the answer uploaded in the revised answer key to question No.112 is the correct answer. Thus, no interference is called for.

The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. April 20, 2022 ( SUDHIR MITTAL) poonam JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes Whether Reportable No POONAM RATHORE 2022.04.22 12:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document