Allahabad High Court
Satyendra Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 August, 2020
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4664 of 2020 Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Chaubey,Ajai Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned result/select list dated 25.10.2019 declared/published by the respondent no. 2.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to evaluate OMR sheets of the petitioners.
iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to declare result of the petitioner and also call for interview and further selection be made in accordance with procedure as provided, after declaration of the result of the petitioners."
The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had applied for examination for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade, Lecturer and Principal of the recognized and aided Institutions in terms of the Advertisement No. 1 of 2016. It is alleged that out of four subjects included in part-2 of OMR sheet, the petitioners were required to fill their answers with regard to two subjects which the petitioners have rightly done, however on account of inadvertence in the other two subjects which the petitioners have not opted, some errors were made by the petitioners. He argues that the said errors were inadvertent and in the subjects not even opted by the petitioners and thus the answers of the petitioners with regard to the subjects opted by the petitioners be considered and the results be declared accordingly.
Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 14.2.2020 passed in Writ-A No. 20396 of 2019 (Manoj Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. and Another), wherein a similar controversy was considered and decided by the learned Single Judge and was concluded by holding as under:-
"For all the discussions made above, I hold that if a candidate correctly fills up the mandatory information in Part-I of the OMR Answer sheet, does not write or mark on his answer paper outside the demarcated area and hands over the answer sheet to the Invigilator before leaving the examination hall, then subject to instruction no. 11, the Part-II of the OMR Answer sheet bearing answers to the questions of the subject opted in Part-I, has to be evaluated in terms of Rule 12(3) of the Rules, 1998.
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."
Counsel for the respondents informs that against the said judgment dated 14.2.2020, a Special Appeal has been field, however the same has not been heard and no interim orders have been passed therein.
Considering the fact that a similar controversy has already been adjudicated by a Single Judge, the judgment whereof is extensive and I have no reason to differ with the said judgment.
The present writ petition is allowed following the said judgment dated 14.2.2020 passed in Writ-A No. 20396 of 2019. The benefits extended to the petitioners in Writ-A No. 20396 of 2019 shall also enure to the benefit of the petitioners herein.
Order Date :- 26.8.2020 SR