Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Manoj Srivastava vs State Of Up on 14 January, 2020
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer, Deepak Gupta
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 265 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP (C ) No.1312/2018)
MANOJ SRIVASTAVA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UP & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellant before us had applied for the post of Lab Assistant (Rural) in the State of U.P. and examination for selecting the Lab Assistants was conducted in the year 2009 through a question paper consisting of multiple choice questions on Optical Mark Reading Answer Sheets (in short ‘the OMR Sheets’).
The grievance of the appellant was that as per his information he had obtained 86 marks but when the result was declared it was shown that he has obtained only 77 marks. It was also urged that the OMR sheets of the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2020.01.17 17:01:20 IST Reason: candidates including the appellant have been tampered with and the marks have been interpolated. 2
The first Writ Petition filed by the appellant before the Allahabad High Court, was directed to be treated as a representation to the State. This representation was rejected. Thereby the order passed by the Principal Secretary rejecting the representation was challenged before the High court in Writ Petition No. 2326 of 2012. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
Aggrieved the appellant filed Special Appeal No. 695 of 2012. During the proceedings before the High Court it transpired that everything was not above board and there was some questionable act which had taken place with regard to the marking of the OMR Sheets. However, the OMR Sheets of the selected candidates were not produced; it was stated that they were missing.
Thereafter an FIR was lodged and an enquiry was conducted by the CID.
Without going into the merits of the case, the High Court dismissed the Appeal only on the ground that since seven years had elapsed/transpired, the matter had lost its efficacy.
3
We are also of the view that if the litigant approaches the court in time then the matter cannot be left un-decided by saying that it has lost its efficacy. The matter has to be decided on its own merits.
We are also of the view that this matter has not become infructuous. It must be decided on merits.
We, accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court and request the High Court to dispose of the same as early as possible on merits, keeping in view the nature of the dispute.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
................J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER) ................J. (DEEPAK GUPTA) NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 14, 2020
4
ITEM NO.20 COURT NO.14 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 1312/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-10-2017 in SA No. 695/2012 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad, Lucknow Bench) MANOJ SRIVASTAVA Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF UP & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 14-01-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA For Petitioner(s) Mrs. Rekha Pandey, AOR Mr. Raj Karan Singh, Adv.
Ms. Smriti Kumari, adv.
Mr. Raghav Pandey, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
(NEELAM GULATI) (RAJINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER (Signed Order is placed on the file)