JUDGMENT :

Prakash Padia, J.

The order dated December 17, 2021 passed by the Single Judge has been challenged by filing present intra Court appeal.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in a nutshell are that the writ-petitioner had preferred the writ petition in question stating therein that being fully eligible and qualified, he applied for vacancies advertised by the respondents-Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Sewa Chayan Board, Prayagraj (for short 'the Board') for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher being advertisement No. 01/2021 in the month of March, 2021. The appellant filled his application form in respect of the vacancies in the subject of Social Science under O.B.C. category. Result of the aforesaid examination was declared on October 26, 2021 wherein the cut off mark of the petitioner's category was 462.82500. The name of the appellant was not included in the select list while he had answered 87 questions correctly and got 350.804 marks, which are above than the cut off declared by the respondents.

3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, a representation was submitted by the appellant but since no response was given, the petitioner-appellant preferred the writ petition. When the writ petition was taken up on November 26, 2021 the following order was passed :

''According to the petitioner, he had appeared in T.G.T. examination pursuant to advertisement No. 1 of 2021.According to final key answer published by the respondents, the petitioner would secure 350.804 marks which is more than the cut off marks in OBC category.

Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted ten days time to seek instructions in the matter and apprise the Court as to why the result of the petitioner has not been declared.

Put up as fresh on 17.12.2021.''

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid, counsel for the respondent-board placed instructions before the learned Single Judge alongwith the photocopy of the OMR sheet of the writ-petitioner/appellant. The writ-petitioner/appellant had to answer only two subjects, namely History and Civics, whereas besides the said two subjects he had also answered the question of Economics, due to which OMR Sheet of the writ-petitioner/appellant could not be evaluated.

5. Taking into consideration the instructions alongwith OMR Sheet placed before the learned Single Judge, he was pleased to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the writ-petitioner/appellant has preferred the present appeal.

7. It is argued by the counsel for the appellant that the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated December 17, 2021 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further argued that the appellant had attempted only two subjects, i.e., History and Civics, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit, but this fact has not been considered by the learned Single Judge and merely relying upon the ex-parte averments of the respondents, the writ petition filed by the writ-petitioner/appellant was dismissed. It is further argued that though on the basis of the instructions placed by the respondents counsel before the learned Single Judge, the writ petition was dismissed but no liberty was given to the counsel for the appellant to meet the above version of the respondents. It is further argued that no opportunity of hearing was given to the counsel for the writ-petitioner/appellant to reply the incorrect version of the respondent.

8. On the other hand, it is argued by Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Board that in the OMR Sheet of the writ-petitioner/appellant apart from the subjects namely History and Civics, he had also answered the question of Economics, due to which OMR Sheet of the writ-petitioner/appellant could not be evaluated. It is further argued by him that as per Clause-2 of the instructions, condition Nos. 6, 9 and 12 of the advertisement have not been followed by the writ-petitioner/appellant, due to which his OMR Sheet was not evaluated.

9. It is