Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 15 December, 2020
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 81 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11885 of 2020 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yatindra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Singh Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Sri Yatindra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Board and the learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking the following relief:
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to evaluate the OMR Answer Sheet of the TGT Examination-2016 (Boys Group) of the petitioner regarding his Social Science subject as per his option given in the first part of the OMR Sheet treating History and Civics as the attempted subjects and declare his result of the aforesaid written test forthwith and permit him to appear in the consequential interview of the aforesaid post and declare his result thereafter in connection thereto following the consequential action thereafter."
It is undisputed that certain mistakes were made by the petitioner while filling out the O.M.R. Sheet albeit due to inadvertence. It in that backdrop that the petitioner now essentially seeks rectification and permission to appear in interview consequently. A similar prayer has been dealt with in Arti Verma Vs. State of U.P., [Special Appeal Defective No. 123 of 2014 decided on 5.2.2014] and Jai Karan Singh and 52 Others Vs. State of U.P. [Special Appeal No. 90 of 2018 decided on 25.04.2018]. This Court has noticed those two decisions in its recent judgment rendered in Pawan Kumar And 26 Others Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others [Writ -A No. 11079 of 2020 decided on 14 December 2020] while rejecting a similar prayer for rectifications in online application forms. In view of the aforesaid the relief as claimed cannot be possibly countenanced.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision rendered by a learned Judge of the Court in Manoj Kumar And 99 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another [Writ -A No. -20396 of 2019] to contend that in that petition the learned Judge has proceeded to direct the respondents to evaluate the O.M.R. answer sheet of such petitioners who had petitioned notwithstanding the mistakes made and had framed the following directions:-
"29. For all the reasons aforesaid, all the writ petitions are disposed off with the directions to the respondent no. 3 to evaluate OMR Answer sheet of such petitioners who have answered in Part-II of the OMR Answer sheet the questions of the two subjects opted by them, but inadvertently also marked one or two circles of another subject. Those petitioners who are found successful in the aforesaid written examination, shall be called for interview. Thereafter, their results shall be declared in accordance with law."
As is manifest from a reading of that judgment, the Division Bench decisions in Arti Verma and Jai Karan Singh have neither been noticed nor considered. The Court also fails to countenance the directions to evaluate O.M.R. sheets since the same cannot possibly be done by manual means. In fact permission to rectify or overlook mistakes in OMR sheets would stand on worser footing than online applications forms.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.12.2020 Arun K. Singh (Yashwant Varma, J.)