Allahabad High Court
Deeksha Singh And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 March, 2024
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:38393 Reserved on: 15.02.2024 Delivered on: 04.03.2024 Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6234 of 2022 Petitioner :- Deeksha Singh And 7 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dr. D.K. Tiwari Along with 1. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6613 of 2022 Petitioner :- Kajal Mishra And 92 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kr Srivastava,Pratibha Asthana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Arun Kumar,Ashok Kumar Yadav 2. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6823 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ratnesh Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Yadav,Ramesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 3. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6832 of 2022 Petitioner :- Dipali Tripathi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 4. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7971 of 2022 Petitioner :- Birpal Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 5. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6619 of 2022 Petitioner :- Sudha Rani Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard S/Sri, Ajay Singh, learned counsel for petitioners in leading writ petition, Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner in connected case and Ms. Shruti Malviya, S/Sri L.M. Singh, Manvendra Dixit, Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, Lal Mani Tripathi and Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for State in all cases.
2. In the present case, a preliminary objection was taken by counsel for respondents that controversy involved in present case has already been settled against petitioners by a recent judgment passed by this Bench on 05.02.2024 in Pragati Agrawal and 57 others vs. State of UP and another and connected writ petitions, 2024:AHC:18999. Learned counsel for respondent has referred following part of Pragati Agarwal (supra) which are reproduced hereinafter:-
"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"
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."
3. Learned counsel for respondents has also placed reliance on other judgment passed by this Bench in the case of Akhilesh Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others and connected matters, 2024:AHC:19004 wherein, after placing reliance on Pragati Agarwal (supra), petitions were allowed in part and he referred the following relevant part thereof:-
"6. It has been specifically referred in the counter affidavit that objections with regard to Questions No. 83 and 144, i.e., two out of five questions in dispute, have already been considered and one number for each question has been granted to petitioners. If the same has not been awarded to all petitioners, respondents are directed to award one number for each question (i.e., Questions No. 83 and 144) to all petitioners and thereafter declare fresh result.
7. So far as other questions are concerned, i.e., 35, 124 and 139, I found merit in argument of respondents as well as stand taken in counter affidavit that since after considering the various material the expert committee has issued a revised answer key, therefore, in view of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra), I do not find that petitioners, on basis of material available, have made out a case for interference, so far as revised answer key of said three questions are concerned.8. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed in part."
4. Learned counsel for petitioners has not denied about above referred two judgments, however, still he submits that there is one question in which two options were doubtful and an ambiguity was created, therefore, they may be granted grace marks for two questions which are as follows :-
"Q89- Fill in the Blanks:
" _____________ of Playing, the children went home".
(1) While Tiring (2) Having Tired (3) On tiring (4) Being Tired Submission- That the answer to the above mentioned question in final answer key is option no (2) Having Tired whereas the correct answer as per the English Grammar Book " OBJECTIVE GENERAL ENGLISH" by PHILIP SUNIL SOLOMON 2018 edition published at Oxford University Press page no 159 is option no (4) Being Tired. Truecopy of the page no 159 of Book "OBJECTIVE GENERAL ENGLISH" by PHILIP SUNIL SOLOMON published at Oxford University Press is filed herewith and marked as Annexure No-4C to this writ petition.
Q60. 'आंख की किरकिरी होने' का अर्थ है-
(1) बहुत प्रिय होना (2) कष्टदायक होना (3) धोखा देना (4) अप्रिय लगना Submission- This year the correct answer as per answer key is option (4) whereas the correct answer to this same question in UPTET-2017 Examination was both (2) & (4)."
5. Learned counsel for petitioners, in pursuance of his submission, has placed reliance on certain documents and materials that answer to above questions in the answer key was not correct.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents have submitted that petitioners have not disclosed whether they have filed any objections to answer key, therefore, they are not permitted to raise any objection. They also reiterated that material brought on record by petitioners are not sufficient to interfere with the answer key approved by a panel of experts and they reiterated above referred judgments passed by this Court.
7. Heard counsel for parties and perused the records.
8. So far as legal issue is concerned, that has been considered and reiterated in Pragati Agrawal and 57 others (supra) and Akhilesh (supra) that Constitutional Court must exercise brief and extent in such matters and should be reluctant to enter plea, challenging the correctness of answer. In the aforesaid, the Court has only granted benefit two questions which were repeated and in the earlier year of examination and a division bench of this Court has granted grace marks. So far as other questions is concerned, this Court has reiterated that there was no ground to interfere with answer key.
9. Having considered the rival submissions and material on record, I do not find any ground or material to take a different view taken in Pragati Agrawal and 57 others (supra) and Akhilesh(supra), therefore, the relief sought by petitioners could not be granted accordingly, all writ petitions are dismissed.
Order Date: 04.03.2024 P. Pandey [SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.]