Allahabad High Court
Riyaz Khan vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 15 January, 2008
Bench: B.S. Chauhan, Dilip Gupta
JUDGMENT
1. In view of the order passed earlier, Shri Murlidhar Dube, Controller of the Examinations and Shri Arun Prakash, Special Secretary (Law) of the U.P. Public Service Commission are present along with the records. Shri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Najma Begum for the Commission and Shri Shailendra for the petitioner have been heard.
2. The answer books and result sheets have been examined. As per the information gathered from the counter-affidavit filed by the Commission as well as the oral submissions made by Learned Counsel for the parties, it is evident that on the representations received against the key answers given on the Website, the Commission decided to constitute a Committee of Experts consisting of four Members. The Expert Committee concluded that five questions were required to be cancelled and the answers of nine questions were to be substituted by the correct answers existing amongst the options. These recommendations of the Expert Committee were accepted by the Commission and the Commission declared a fresh result on the basis of the rectified answers after cancelling the previous result.
3. It needs to be mentioned that even after the deletion of five questions, the result was declared afresh treating 150 marks as maximum marks and not 145 marks. According to the Commission, the candidates who had given correct answers of 15 questions, were awarded 16 marks (adding one mark); candidates who had given correct answers of 46 questions were awarded 48 marks (adding two marks); candidates who had given correct answers of 73 questions were awarded 76 marks (adding three marks), candidates who had given correct answers of 102 questions were awarded 106 marks (adding four marks); and the candidates who had given correct answers of 131 questions were given 136 marks (adding five marks). We do not find any ground to interfere on this count as we are of the considered opinion that the decision taken by the Commission is reasonable and correct.
4. In respect of the answers to the nine questions, the Expert Committee pointed out the correct answers to those nine questions and the answer sheets of the candidates were again checked by feeding the correct key answers and the marks obtained by the candidates have been corrected accordingly.
5. We do not doubt the bona fides of the Commission in appointing the Committee of Experts and nor do we have any reason to doubt the correctness of the decision taken by the Expert Committee constituted by the Commission.
6. There are certain allegations of facts in respect of certain candidates as to whether their candidature should have been accepted as has been mentioned in paragraphs 17-A and 17-B of the writ petition. Reply submitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit is far from satisfactory and in view thereof, on our request, the officers present in the Court have agreed to re-examine the averments made in these paragraphs of the writ petition and in case the result is likely to be changed, they will hear the candidates who are likely to be affected and shall pass appropriate orders before giving effect to the order.
7. In view of the above, nothing survives in this petition and the petition stands disposed accordingly.