Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Upendra Nath Yadav on 12 April, 2019
Bench: Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3899/2019
[@ SLP [C] NO.35187/2017]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UPENDRA NATH YADAV Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent though served. The short facts of the case are that in the year 2011, Uttar Pradesh Civil Police and Platoon Commander Direct Recruitment Examination were conducted for selection of suitable candidates for the post of Sub-Inspectors. The respondent herein, namely, Upendra Nath Yadav applied for the post by completing the due process and was allotted Roll No.47170075. He appeared in the examination and the booklet having code SPU-02 No.795933 of the series-C was allotted to him but he did not fill the booklet series in the prescribed box of OMR sheet.
On 01.01.2013, the result for the Uttar Pradesh Civil Police and Platoon Commander Direct Recruitment Examination 2011 for the post of sub-Inspectors was declared. The respondent was not selected in the examination as he did not fill in the details in the prescribed box and, therefore, his result was not declared on Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date: 2019.04.25 account of his default.
17:38:25 IST Reason:
The respondent made a representation to appellant no.3 on 2 04.01.2013 asking to declare the result. The said representation was not decided and in pendency of the said adjudication of the representation of the respondent, the respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court being Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.9676 of 2013 seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the appellants to decide the representation and declare his result within a stipulated time.
Vide its final judgment and order dated 17.04.2013, the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and directed the appellants to evaluate the OMR answer sheet within two weeks.
Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred Special Appeal No.1086 of 2013 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court vide its impugned judgment and order dated 09.02.2015, in Special Appeal No.1086/2013 dismissed the appeal of the State and others and the order passed by the Single Bench on 17.04.2013 in Writ Petition No.9676/2013 has been affirmed.
In the writ petition filed by the respondent herein prayer has been made that his representation/objection dated 04.01.2013 be directed to be decided in the matter of Uttar Pradesh Civil Police and Platoon Commander Direct Recruitment Examination, 2011, the learned Single Judge Bench has passed the order exceeding the prayer and has directed vide order dated 17.4.2013 that as the prayer sought by him was innocuous in nature, the mark sheet of the respondent herein be evaluated within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order and result be declared 3 accordingly.
Aggrieved thereby, the appeal was preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh and others against the order of the learned Single Judge. Vide order dated 09.02.2015, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the State affirming the order passed by the Single Judge.
The case set up by the State of Uttar Pradesh is that the OMR mark sheet could not have been evaluated in view of the condition No.13 of Instructions contained in Annexure P-1. The instructions are as under:
“1. Applicant to mention his roll number and question paper series and make you signature on answer sheet at appropriate places. Else answer sheet shall not be evaluated and he will be given zero marks. It shall be the sole responsibility of the applicant. The information given in the OMR question paper will be read by the machine. If information is incomplete, or vary from the information given in the application form, candidature of such applicant shall be deemed to be cancelled.
3. Candidates should not left the OMR answer sheet as empty.
13. Answer sheet shall be read by machine. Any kind of fold, tearing of border, unnecessary sign of ink, tear could be obstructory for machine. Therefore, circle be made in neat and clean manner, complete and at the desired places only.” It has been contended on behalf of the State that it has been specifically provided at serial No.1 of important instructions, in the question booklet, to the effect that the candidate must fill his roll number and question paper series in the answer sheet and the answer sheet must be signed by the candidate at the specified place otherwise the answer sheet would not be evaluated and zero 4 will be awarded. The question booklet series has not been filled in the required box and OMR sheet by the respondent, booklet series bubble has been left blank. Therefore, the OMR answer sheet was not evaluated by the computer machine. The impugned judgment and order has been passed ignoring the aforesaid aspect.
Considering the orders passed by the Single Bench as well as the Division Bench, we find that the High Court has not cared to examine the aforesaid aspect. The same was expected to be dealt with by the Division Bench but that has not been done. In view of the failure to comply with the instructions that question booklet series has not been filled in the required box and OMR sheet by the respondent booklet series bubble was left blank, therefore, OMR answer sheet could not be evaluated by the computer machine. We have no hesitation to set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as of the Division Bench of the High Court.
The appeal is allowed.
No order as to costs.
…………………………...J. [ARUN MISHRA] …………………………...J. [NAVIN SINHA] NEW DELHI APRIL 12, 2019.
5
ITEM NO.53 COURT NO.4 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO.35187/2017 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS UPENDRA NATH YADAV Respondent(s) (IA No.125682/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.125685/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.125687/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.125683/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING Date : 12-04-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA For Appellant(s) Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Adv.
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications stand disposed of.
(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (JAGDISH CHANDER)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
[signed order is placed on the file]