Allahabad High Court
Sonal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 12 December, 2022
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2236 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sonal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.S.Parihar,Aakash Rai Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri A.K.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the Board and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Secretary, U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board. By that order, the said authority has rejected the representations dated 01.11.2021 and 24.12.2021 filed by the petitioner as enabled by earlier order of this Court in Sonal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors. (Writ - A No. 16777 of 2021), decided on 21.12.2021. Thus, the petitioner's objection to the correctness of the answer responses to Question Nos. 11, 45 and 56 of Booklet Series C at the TGT Examination 2021, has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend, enabled by the direction issued by the writ Court in the earlier leg of litigation namely Writ - A No. 16777 of 2021, the petitioner's objection (to the correctness of the above described responses) should have been considered on merits. The Board has neither offered such consideration nor any expert material has been referred or relied upon for the purpose of rejection of the objection thus raised.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Board would contend, the written examination was conducted on 07.08.2021. The model answer key was uploaded on 10.08.2021. Objections were raised on 21.08.2021. As to Question Nos. 11, 45 and 56 of Booklet Series C, it has been submitted, the correct answer responses as proposed in the model answer key were A, B, B respectively. Though certain objections were received, no objection was filed by the petitioner through online mode within the window 10.08.2021 and 13.08.2021. Thereafter, the Board uploaded the final answer key on 26.10.2021. The answer responses to Question Nos. 11, 45 and 56 of Booklet Series C remained unchanged.
5. Almost two months after the final declaration of the result, the allocation of institution was also made on 31.11.2021. Almost two months thereafter the petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ - A No. 16777 of 2021. Therein, a direction was prayed and was granted to allow the petitioner to file objection. However, that did not override the mandatory conditions that otherwise existed and the obligation on the petitioner to file objections, if any, within the time window created for that purpose namely, 10.08.2021 to 13.08.2021. The petitioner having failed to file such objection within that timeline, no independent right arose to her to override that procedure and seek an independent right under the directions issued by this Court dated 21.12.2021.
6. In any case, as to the merits of the matter, it has been submitted, in compliance of the direction issued by this Court, the Board had consulted experts. Thereafter, no merit was found in the objection raised by the petitioner.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in matters of selection, time is of essence. Unless such proceedings are allowed to be conducted and concluded in fixed time frame, often the whole purpose of the selection process may get frustrated. In any case, in the present facts, under the instruction dated 10.08.2021, the objections to the model answer key were invited within three days from the declaration of the model answer key.
8. In paragraph no. 8 of the writ petition, it has been stated, the petitioner had submitted online, objections to Question Nos. 11, 45 and 56 of Booklet Series C. That fact assertion has been specifically denied in paragraph no.4 of the counter affidavit. Thus, it has been submitted, no such objection came to be filed by the petitioner. In reply thereto, though bald denial has been made in paragraph no.4 of the rejoinder affidavit, however, no supporting document or evidence has been brought on record by the petitioner as may establish that she had filed her objections through online mode within the time granted by the Board. Plainly, the petitioner has not been able to establish before the Court that she had filed her objections in the manner prescribed.
9. Then, even at the stage of filing of the earlier writ petition, the petitioner does not appear to have taken a stand of having filed her objections through online mode between 10.08.2021 and 13.08.2021. The petitioner only urged to the Court, she had fallen short by two marks and that she had made a representation in that regard to the Board in view of the answer responses to the three Question Nos. 11, 45 and 56 of the Booklet Series C.
10. In such facts, the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with the following observation :
"1. Heard Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Sri Aakash Rai, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has appeared in T.G.T. Examination, 2021 and the result of the same was declared, whereby the petitioner has fallen short of two marks for being selected.
3. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that question nos. 11, 45 and 56 have been wrongly marked and in case said corrections are made, the petitioner would be considered as selected candidate and submits that in this regard a representation has been made before respondent no. 3 and consequently, prayer has been made to issue suitable directions to respondent no. 3 to consider and decide the same expeditiously.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection in case suitable directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner.
5. Accordingly, present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent no. 3 to consider and decide petitioner's representation dated 01.11.2021 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) expeditiously, say within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of copy of this order, in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioner.
6. With aforesaid directions the writ petition stands disposed of."
11. Inasmuch as the petitioner did not claim before this Court that she had filed her objections in the manner prescribed and further insofar as no direction was issued by the writ Court to accept such fact assertion, the direction issued by the writ Court to enable consideration of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law did not create any fresh right to the petitioner to raise fresh objections to the correctness of the answer responses in question. Since the instructions dated 10.08.2021 do constitute law between the parties whereunder the petitioner was permitted to file her objections within the time frame, she may never claim any independent right to seek consideration of any objection filed after expiry of that time. Here, it may also not be forgotten, the result was declared on 26.10.2021 and the writ petition has been filed almost two months thereafter.
12. In similar facts, Writ - A No. 3010 of 2022 (Priti Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors.) was decided on 17.11.2022. Similar relief claimed was denied for the reasons as noted above.
13. For all facts and reasons noted above, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present writ petition is hit by laches. The challenge being raised to the merit also does not require any further consideration, both owing to laches as also the fact that the selection process stands concluded after following due process of inviting objections and dealing with the same.
14. Present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.12.2022 Abhilash