Allahabad High Court
Sonal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 17 May, 2023
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:107004-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 263 of 2023 Appellant :- Sonal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.S.Parihar,Vibhanshu Vaibhav Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Seemant Singh learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav holding brief of Vibhanshu Vaibhav learned counsel for the respondent.
This intra court appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.12.2021 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed noticing an earlier decision of the Bench dated 17.11.2022 in Writ A No.3010 of 2022 (Priti Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 26 others). The dispute raised in the writ petition is with regard to the correctness of three model key answers of three questions namely question Nos.'11', '45' and '56'. In paragraph No.'8' of the writ petition, it is stated by the petitioner that she made online objection to the answer to question Nos.'11', '45' and '56' of Booklet Series-C. The date of submission of the objection, however, has not been indicated therein.
It is noted by the learned Single Judge that model answer key was uploaded on 10.08.2021 and objections were raised on 21.08.2021 by the petitioner therein whereas the window for submission of objection through online mode was open on 10.08.2021 and 13.08.2021. Final answer key was displayed on 26.10.2021. The statement made in the writ petition that the petitioner made online objection to three questions noted herein above, therefore, is turned down.
It is further noted by the learned Single Judge that in the matter of selection, time is of essence and 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.
We are in agreement with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition seeking writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to appoint a Subject Expert Committee to examine the objection of the petitioner with regard to the above noted questions.
In this appeal, a copy of the information received by the petitioner under RTI Act has been placed before us to assert that the information received by the petitioner on 21.12.2022 appended at page No.167 of the paper book also substantiate that the petitioner had submitted online objection to the question noted above. A perusal of the information at page No.'167' of the paper book indicates that though it is stated therein that the petitioner had raised objection to the model key answer of six questions i.e. question Nos.'8', '11', '23', '46', '56' & '92,' but the date of submission of the objection is not indicated therein. The petitioner has also not disclosed the date of the objection which is otherwise noted by the learned Single Judge.
For the aforesaid,we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge.
The appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 17.5.2023 Himanshu