Allahabad High Court
Aradhana Tripathi vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 31 August, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:140766-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 434 of 2024 Appellant :- Aradhana Tripathi Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudeep Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Dubey Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application
1. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the delay is condoned and application is allowed, accordingly.
2. Present special appeal is treated to have been filed well within the time.
3. Office is directed to allot regular number to the appeal.
Order on Special Appeal
1. Heard Sri Sudeep Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri F.A. Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 5.
2. Present intra-court appeal is preferred questioning the validity of the judgment and order dated 15-02-2024 passed in leading Writ-A No.5241 of 2022 (Raj Kumar Yadav and 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and others) along with appellant-petitioner Writ-A No. 16677 of 2022 (Aradhana Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others). For ready reference, the operative portion of the order dated 15-02-2024 is extracted as under:-
"12. The petitioners have heavily relied upon a submission that since in initial result no error was detected in regard to filling of bubbles of subject attempted, therefore, there was no reason that their OMR sheets were not examined during subsequent/fresh evaluation, however, in this regard, this Court is of the considered opinion that instructions as referred above mentioned in examination booklet were very clear that they have to fill only one bubble completely against the subject of which they have attempted for question No. 51 to 150, but as referred instructions were not followed and circle/bubble were filled by incorrect method
13. Out of number of petitioners, only few have filed their photocopy of OMR sheets and as referred above, in each of OMR sheets, either two bubbles were filled completely or two bubbles were filled partially or out of two bubbles filled, one bubble was filled completely and other partially as well as though only one bubble was filled but not completely as required in inspection. There is a case of rubbing also. This was against the specific instructions and, therefore, there is no legal error in the subsequent checking by the computer system, that computer system has not proceeded to evaluate those OMR. In result, candidature was rejected on ground of 'Subject Shift'.
14. A fair procedure of selection process is a soul of any selection process and for that correct filling of OMR sheet and details thereon according to instructions is also part of fairness. The petitioners have not filled bubbles correctly against the subject, as referred from the OMR sheet being part of this order and they have also failed to show this Court that their case were contrary i.e. despite they have filled bubbles strictly in accordance with instructions still the computer system has wrongly proceeded not to examine their OMR and result could not be declared being 'subject shift'.
15. In the aforesaid circumstances, the subsequent result was declared after curing the earlier errors to maintain the fairness of examination. Petitioner has failed to point out any error in process of subsequent checking of OMR for subsequent result. Number of petitioners have not filed photocopy of their respective OMR sheet and may be a reason for that they know that instructions were not completely followed. The petitioners have failed to point out any legal error in subsequent verifying/checking of answer sheet in order to maintain fairness of examination. The outcome of above discussion would be that I do not find any error in the impugned order, therefore, all writ petitions are dismissed."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who holds a B.A. and B.Ed. degree with good marks and has qualified the UP-TET (Upper Primary Level) in 2020, applied for the Assistant Teacher Junior Aided exam in 2021 under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category. She appeared for the examination, after which she was given a carbon copy of her OMR answer sheet, as per the rules. The initial result published on November 15, 2021, indicated that the petitioner scored 114 out of 150 marks, thereby qualifying for the position. However, on September 6, 2022, a fresh result was released, showing that the petitioner scored 0 marks and her result was marked as invalid for the subject in Shift-I. The petitioner submitted a representation to the authorities on September 12, 2022, seeking clarification and correction, but received no response.
4. Initially, the matter was taken up on 03-07-2024 and this Court had passed the following order:-
"1. List revised. Case called out. Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel on behalf of the contesting respondent is not present.
2. On the next date, learned counsel for the contesting respondent may produce the original OMR sheet of the appellant-petitioner in a sealed cover.
3. Put up this matter again as fresh on 15-07-2024.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to inform Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey in writing for necessary compliance."
5. In response to the order dated 03-07-2024, Sri F.A. Ansari, learned Standing Counsel has placed the OMR answer sheet of the appellant-petitioner in a sealed cover, which is opened in presence of the counsels.
6. We have also perused the OMR answer sheet.
7. After carefully examining the OMR answer sheet, we do not find that any case is made out in favour of the appellant-petitioner to take a different view from the learned Single Judge.
8. The appeal fails, and is, accordingly dismissed with no order as to the cost.
9. The OMR answer sheet is again sealed and the same is returned to Sri F.A. Ansari, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the State-respondents.
Order Date :- 31.8.2024 pks