Allahabad High Court
Tej Bahadur vs State Of U.P.Thr.Prin.Secy.Secondary ... on 8 August, 2019
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 25 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 667 of 2012 Petitioner :- Tej Bahadur Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thr.Prin.Secy.Secondary Education,Lko.& 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- B.K.Singh,Amitabh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R.K. Srivastava Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus to be issued to respondent no.4 to declare the petitioner's result for UPTET-2011 after considering the objections preferred by him on 24.12.2011.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner took part in UPTET-2011 having Roll No.08034356 on 13.11.2011 at the Centre allotted to him i.e. Kamta Prasad Sunder Lal Saket P.G. College, Ayodhya. The result of the candidates was declared on 25.11.2011, but the petitioner's result was not declared and he was shown as absent. The petitioner preferred a representation on 5.12.2011 that he was not absent and attended the examination on 13.11.2011 and thereafter he also filed his objections on 24.12.2011. The revised result, on consideration of objections of all the candidates, who submitted such objections, was declared on 11.1.2012, but the petitioner's result was still not declared.
When this writ petition was filed before this Court annexing therewith a copy of OMR Sheet, which the candidates had been allowed to take home, this Court by an order dated 27.9.2012, directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the Attendance Sheet/Register of UPTET examination held on 13.11.2011 at Kamta Prasad Sunder Lal Saket P.G. College, Ayodhya on the next date of listing.
Despite orders for production of record being passed repeatedly, the record was not produced by the learned Standing Counsel. On 6.11.2012, however, the record was produced, which was the photocopy of the Attendance Sheet of UPTET-2011 held on 13.11.2011 at Kamta Prasad Sunder Lal Saket P.G. College, Ayodhya, which bore the signatures of the petitioner. On the basis of instructions given to the learned Standing Counsel, it was informed to the Court that the petitioner after completing examination, had taken away the original OMR Answer Sheet and on the basis of the report of the Invigilator, a FIR was lodged against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner disputed such story of the respondents and argued that after this Court passed the order, summoning the record on 27.9.2012, a FIR has been lodged on the basis of some ante dated letter. This Court directed the matter to be listed again, in the meantime, giving time to the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions and inform as to what action has been taken by the Police authorities on the FIR allegedly lodged by the Principal, Kamta Prasad Sunder Lal Saket P.G. College, Ayodhya on 13.11.2011.
Thereafter on several dates when the matter was listed, learned Standing Counsel took time to seek instructions regarding the progress in the investigation on the basis of FIR so lodged. In the meantime, the petitioner also impleaded respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 in the writ petition i.e. Joint Director of Education, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, Principal, Kamta Prasad Sunder Lal Saket P.G. College, Ayodhya and Incharge Inspector, P.S. Kotwali, Ayodhya.
A counter affidavit has been filed in the writ petition by Sri R.K. Srivastava on behalf of the Principal, Kamta Prasad Sunder Lal Saket P.G. College, Ayodhya, respondent no.6, wherein the facts as reported to this Court by the learned Standing Counsel have been repeated and it has been stated that the petitioner was allotted the Centre and he also wrote the examination in Room No.26. There were 48 examinees in the said room and just after half an hour of starting of the examination, when the Invigilator obtained signatures of the examinees on the Attendance Sheet, it was revealed that only 41 examinees were present and seven were absent. At the end of examination of first meeting, only 40 examinees deposited their original OMR Sheet and first carbon copy to the Invigilator. The petitioner took his OMR Sheet and disappeared from the examination Centre altogether.
It has been submitted in the said counter affidavit that the conduct of the petitioner was reported immediately thereafter by the Invigilator and the Principal wrote a letter to the Incharge Inspector, P.S. Kotwali, Ayodhya.
It was only when the Joint Director of Education, Faizabad through his letter dated 10.10.2012 sought further information regarding investigation if any, then the Principal contacted the Kotwali and found out that no FIR was lodged in pursuance of the information given. The FIR was actually registered on 19.12.2012.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the Principal and the counter affidavit filed by the State-respondents, it is evident that only after this Court summoned the record relating to the case and the Joint Director of Education through his letter dated 10.10.2012 sought further information, then FIR was lodged only the basis of an ante dated letter.
This Court has also been informed that in pursuance of the FIR so lodged, the Investigating Officer had submitted a charge sheet in the Court without conducting necessary enquiries and, therefore, the petitioner challenged the charge sheet before this Court and in the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court has stayed further proceedings.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before this Court a letter sent by the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad dated 5.11.2012 to the office of the learned Standing Counsel in the writ petition of the petitioner, wherein mention has been made that all records relating to UPTET-2011 examination were sealed by the Inspector, Akbarpur Thana, Ramabai Nagar and no records relating to UPTET-2011 were available with the Parishad and in the absence of such records, no definite information can be given with regard to any of the examinees by the Parishad.
The writ petitions cannot be entertained on disputed question of fact as is come out from various affidavits filed before this Court.
The writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open for the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition in case he is able to prove before the learned trial court, his innocence in the alleged false FIR lodged against him.
Order Date :- 8.8.2019 Sachin