Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Brajesh Kumar Pandey - Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors. - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6506 of 2019
Decided On : 15-05-2019
For the Appellant : Prabhat Kumar Singh and Prashant Kumar Mishra
For the Respondents: C.S.C. and Satyaveer Singh
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 –Petitioner appeared in examination held for post of PGT/Lecturer which was conducted pursuant to advertisement – This examination was conducted by respondent no 2 –Written test was held – Petitioner was allotted Series-C of question booklet set –Result of examination was declared and revised/final answer key of all series was also published – As petitioner was not selected, he tallied answers with revised answer key-and as per petitioner's case he found that there were five answers of question of question booklet set-C wherein though he has marked correct answers, however, key has wrongly provided different answers –Petitioner sent representation to Secretary of respondent Board providing objections on answer sheet of above mentioned questions alongwith materials in support of answers suggested by him –Petitioner also personally met Chairman of respondent Board to ventilate his grievances – Notification was issued by respondent No. 2 whereby answer key to only one question i.e question 70 was corrected as suggested by petitioner –key was published on basis of Review conducted by Experts on subjects – However, answer key to the other four questions remained intact; resultantly, petitioner was also called for interview – As each question contains 3.4 marks, therefore, in case, answer key of other four questions was corrected as per objections sent by petitioner, then petitioner would have got more marks than cut off marks – Held, Court cannot scrutinize answer sheets having no expertise in these subjects as held in judgments passed in Ran Vijay Singh v. U.P.P.S.C through its Chairman and High Court of Tripura through Registrar General –Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that key answers of remaining four questions are patently wrong on face of it –Facts and circumstances of present case does not warrant any interference under powers of Article 226 of Constitution of India – Writ Petition Dismissed. (Paras 17, 18, 19)
Facts of The Case:
Petitioner appeared in examination held for post of PGT/Lecturer which was conducted pursuant to advertisement – This examination was conducted by respondent no 2 –Written test was held – Petitioner was allotted Series-C of question booklet set –Result of examination was declared and revised/final answer key of all series was also published – As petitioner was not selected, he tallied answers with revised answer key-and as per petitioner's case he found that there were five answers of question of question booklet set-C wherein though he has marked correct answers, however, key has wrongly provided different answers –Petitioner sent representation to Secretary of respondent Board providing objections on answer sheet of above mentioned questions alongwith materials in support of answers suggested by him –Petitioner also personally met Chairman of respondent Board to ventilate his grievances – Notification was issued by respondent No. 2 whereby answer key to only one question i.e question 70 was corrected as suggested by petitioner –key was published on basis of Review conducted by Experts on subjects – However, answer key to the other four questions remained intact; resultantly, petitioner was also called for interview – As each question contains 3.4 marks, therefore, in case, answer key of other four questions was corrected as per objections sent by petitioner, then petitioner would have got more marks than cut off marks.
Finding of The Court:
Court cannot scrutinize answer sheets having no expertise in these subjects as held in judgments passed in Ran Vijay Singh v. U.P.P.S.C through its Chairman and High Court of Tripura through Registrar General –Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that key answers of remaining four questions are patently wrong on face of it –Facts and circumstances of present case does not warrant any interference under powers of Article 226 of Constitution of India.
Result: Appeal Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
1. Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satyaveer Singh learned counsel for the respondent no 2.
2. The petitioner had appeared in the examination held for the post of PGT/Lecturer in subject Geography Examination-2011, which was conducted pursuant to advertisement No. 3 of 2011. This examination was conducted by respondent no 2. The written test was held on 15.6.2016. The petitioner was allotted Series-C of question booklet set.
3. The result of the aforesaid examination was declared on 18.7.2018 and a revised/final answer key of all the series was also published. As the petitioner was not selected, he tallied the answers with the revised answer key-and as per petitioner's case he found that there were five answers of the question of question booklet set-C wherein though he has marked correct answers, however, the key has wrongly provided different answers. The questions numbers were 70, 71, 84, 90 and 104 which are mentioned herein after-
"70. Augusta and Atlanta, the two important cotton textile centres are located in:
(A) South Carolina
(B) Massachusetts
(C) North Carolina
(D) Georgia
71. The yield of cotton per hectare is the highest in:
(A) Pakistan
(B) U.S.A.
(C) Egypt
(D) India
84. At what depth of the earth, solid substances are found in the liquid form?
(A) 32 km
(B) 50 km
(C) 80 Km
(D) 100 Km
90. Rift Valley is the result of
(A) Fold
(B) Fault
(C) Warping
(D) Nappe
104. Which of the following cloud is responsible for maximum amount of rainfall.
(A) Cumulus
(B) Cumulo-nimbus
(C) Nimbo-stratus
(D) Cirro-stratus
4. The petitioner on 10.8.2018 sent a representation to the Secretary of the respondent Board providing the objections on the answer sheet of the above mentioned questions alongwith materials in support of answers suggested by him. The petitioner also personally met the Chairman of the respondent Board to ventilate his grievances.
5. On 26.9.2018 a notification was issued by the respondent No. 2 whereby the answer key to only one question i.e question 70 was corrected as suggested by the petitioner. The said key was published on the basis of a Review conducted by the Experts on the subjects. However, the answer key to the other four questions remained intact; resultantly, the petitioner was also called for the interview.
6. The final result was declared on 6.4.2019 and the petitioner was short by only 5.746 marks vis a vis the cut-off marks of selection in PGT/Lecturer in subject Geography. As each question contains 3.4 marks, therefore, in case, the answer key of the other four questions was corrected as per the objections sent by the petitioner, then the petitioner would have got more marks than the cut off marks.
7. In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for following reliefs.
"(i) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the select list dated 6.4.2019 of subject Geography, prepared by the respondent Board for the post of PGT/Lecturer in subject Geography Examination-2011, pursuant to Advertisement No. 3/2011.
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus, directing/commanding the respondent Board to get the answers of Question No. 71, 84, 99 & 104 respectively of Question booklet Set-C of subject Geography be rechecked by an Expert Body in light of materials furnished by the petitioner in support of objections raised by him and accordingly declare fresh result including the name of the petitioner on the basis of 361.60 marks, scored by him, which is only 5.46 marks less than the cutoff marks 367.06 assigned for selection."
8. Sri Prashant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had provided sufficient material to the respondent Board in support of his suggestions that the answers key for the remaining four questions was wrong and the answers as marked by the petitioner were correct and on the basis of sai
