Allahabad High Court
Pragati Agarwal And 57 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 February, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:18999 Reserved on 31.01.2024 Delivered on 05.02.2024 Court No. - 36 1. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6605 of 2022 Petitioner :- Pragati Agarwal And 57 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahima Sahai, Anurag Agrahari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 2. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5940 of 2022 Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahima Sahai,Anurag Agrahari,Pranesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 3. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11199 of 2022 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Saroj Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 4. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15124 of 2022 Petitioner :- Rajesh Singh Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vipul Kumar Dubey,Manoj Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 5. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6315 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ravis Babu And 39 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saumitra Dwivedi,Alok Kumar Dubey,Tanzeel Ahmad,Yatharth Nath Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 6. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6424 of 2022 Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar And 12 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ziya Uddin Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 7. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6553 of 2022 Petitioner :- Pulkit Kapoor Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Abnish Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 8. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6772 of 2022 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar And 11 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ziya Uddin Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 9. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6974 of 2022 Petitioner :- Rekha And 11 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Agrahari,Baldev Shukla,Mahima Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 10. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7090 of 2022 Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pavan Kumar,Amit Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 11. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7183 of 2022 Petitioner :- Mulayam Singh Yadav And 3 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ziya Uddin Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 12. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7253 of 2022 Petitioner :- Kanchan Kumari And 47 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saumitra Dwivedi,Alok Kumar Dubey,Anil Kumar Shukla,Tanzeel Ahmad,Yatharth Nath Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 13. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7557 of 2022 Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar And 34 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahima Sahai,Anurag Agrahari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 14. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7636 of 2022 Petitioner :- Shail Bala Pal And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Pal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 15. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8920 of 2022 Petitioner :- Km. Vibha Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh,Javed Raza Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ras Bihari Pradhan Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. This Court has proceeded to consider the issue involve in all these writ petitions on following factual and legal premise:
(I) The examination in question, namely, Utter Pradesh Teachers Eligibility Test-2021 (hereinafter referred to as "UPTET-2021") is only a qualifying eligibility for the purpose of appointment of Assistant Teachers and such test is held every year. (II) Petitioners have participated in UPTET-2021 and are at the threshold of getting passing marks. (III) Some of the petitioners have filed objections to the tentative answer key and some have not filed any objection, still they remained aggrieved since in final answer key some of the answers which, according to them, were earlier correct, found altered. (IV) So far as legal position is concerned this Court as well as Supreme Court in various judgments, have reiterated that the Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. (See, Kanpur University vs. Samir Gupta, (1983)4 SCC 309; Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P. (2018)2 SCC 357; Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and another vs. Rahul Singh and another, (2018)7 SCC 254)
2. The dispute in present writ petitions is with regard to Questions No. 8, 25, 35 and 141, which are reproduced hereinafter:
"Question No. 8 (13/23/18) of Question Booklet Series/set B (A/C/D) Who described different types of personality based on Glands from the following? (1) Cannon (2) Jung (3) Kreshmer (4) Sprangar Question No. 25 (5/20/10) of Question Booklet Series/Set B (A/C/D) The period of infancyhood is (1) From birth to 6 years (2) From birth to 2 years (3) From 12 years to 18 years (4) Upto 5 years Question No. 35 (60/40/55) of Question Booklet Series/set B (A/C/D) आँख की किरकिरी होने का अर्थ है (1) कष्ट दायक होना (2) धोखा देना (3) अप्रिय लगना (4) बहुत प्रिय होना Question No. 141 (126/131/136) of Question Booklet Series/Set B (A/C/D) In a food chain of grassland ecosystem, the top consumers are (1) Bacteria (2) Carnivorous (3) Herbivorous (4) Either Carnivorous and Herbivorous"
3. Sri Anurag Agrahari and Sri Pranesh Kumar Mishra, Advocates for petitioners, on basis of certain material, submitted that though all the options of some of the questions were incorrect but one option was declared correct and in other questions incorrect options were declared as correct answer. They have also referred that atleast two questions, i.e., Questions No. 8 and 141 were earlier part of UPTET-2017 and a controversy has reached upto this Court and they referred the judgment passed by Division Bench in State of U.P. and others vs. Mohd. Rizwan and others (Special Appeal No. 93 of 2018), decided on 20.11.2019 that therein it was ordered to grant grace marks.
4. Per contra, Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Manvendra Dixit, learned Standing Counsel and Mrs. Shruti Malviya, learned Brief Holder, for State, have referred various judgments that this Court cannot sit as an expert to scrutinize the answers given by expert panel, after considering various relevant material. They also submitted that no benefit can be granted to petitioners, who have not filed any objections to answer key. However, they have not denied specifically that some of the questions were repeated alongwith same options though in different order in examination in question as referred the judgment passed in Mohd. Rizwan (supra).
5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.
6. In the above factual and legal background, I am of the view that in case some questions were repeated in UPTET-2021 with same options though in different order, therefore, ambiguity, which was considered by Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Rizwan (supra) earlier, was repeated, therefore, benefit given to candidates therein, could be granted to petitioners herein also.
7. In this regard I have carefully perused the judgment in Mohd. Rizwan (supra). Questions no. 16 and 131 of UPTET-2017 are repeared in UPTET-2021 being Questions No. 8 and 141. In this regard relevant paragraphs of Mohd. Rizwan (supra) are reproduced hereinafter:
"40) A report of the subject experts was placed before the earlier Division Bench, wherein vide order dated 11.04.2018, this Court has examined the report in regard to 16 questions referred to the subject experts. Out of 16 questions, 3 questions were having wrong answers, as per key answers indicated by the regulatory authority and on the assurance of learned Advocate General, grace marks of question Nos.16, 18 and 131 were given on the agreement with the learned counsel for the parties."
"42) We also perused the report submitted by the subject experts on 11.04.2018, which reveals that three questions were found to be doubtful having different answers, therefore, we are with the agreement of the report submitted by the subject experts being based on concensus of the learned advocates appearing for the parties." (Emphasis supplied)
8. The aforesaid reasoning, conclusion and relief is also equally applicable in present cases. Except that there is no concession on behalf of State, still this Court is of the considered view that since earlier ambiguity has been repeated in UPTET-2021 also, therefore, relief, as granted in Mohd. Rizwan (supra) may be granted to petitioners herein also. Therefore, grace marks for Questions No. 8 and 141 is granted to petitioners. No distinction can be made out, whether objection to answer key was filed or not, as petitioners are now before this Court.
9. So far as other questions are concerned, i.e., Questions No. 25 and 35, during argument the objection with regard to Question No. 35 was not pressed. So far as Question No. 25 is concerned, the material annexed alongwith writ petitions would not be sufficient to take a contrary view to the revised answer key as well as in view of the observation made by Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) that in only extraordinary circumstances correctness of answer key be doubted, which is not the case in hand, therefore, no relief can be granted qua to Question No. 25.
10. In aforesaid circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed in part and only with regard to Questions No. 8 and 141 grace marks be granted to petitioners and accordingly it is ordered that fresh result be declared qua to all petitioners, after taking note of grace marks.
Order Date :- 05.02.2024 AK