Allahabad High Court
Abhishek Kumar Bajpayee vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 17 January, 2020
Author: Saral Srivastava
Bench: Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Reserved on 03.12.2019
Delivered on 17.01.2020
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18733 of 2019
Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Bajpayee
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Shikher Trivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4.
2. The State of U.P. has decided to fill up 68500 vacancies of Assistant Teacher in Primary School run by U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision, State Government directed the Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training JBTC, Campus, Nishatganj, U.P. Lucknow as well as respondent no.4-Secretary Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Allahabad to conduct the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination of 2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'Examination 2018). Pursuant to the said decision, on-line applications were invited to fill up 68500 vacancies of Assistant Teachers by advertisement dated 8.5.2018. The cut off percentage to qualify in the examination was 45% for General and O.B.C (other backward class) candidates and 40% for Schedule Cast Candidates. Thus, to qualify the examination 2018, candidates belonging to General/O.B.C category should secure 67 marks and candidates belonging to scheduled cast category should secure 60 marks.
3. The petitioner being eligible applied for selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. The examination consisted of written examination of 150 questions . The petitioner appeared in the examination and attempted 142 questions out of 150 questions. Respondent no.4 published answer key on 5.6.2018 and objections against the proposed answer key was entertained till 9.6.2018. The Expert Committee was to consider the objections against the answer key and submit its recommendation by 15.6.2018. The modified/corrected model answer key was to be published on 18.6.2018. The result was declared on 13.6.2018 and model answer key was also published. The petitioner secured 59 marks in the examination.
4. It appears that non selected candidates approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.18235 of 2018 (Aniruddh Narayan Shukla and 118 Ors. vs. State of U.P.) which was decided by this court by judgment dated.30.10.2018. The relevant extract of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-
"It appears that some of the petitioners have not availed of the liberty granted under the Government Order dated 05.10.2018 to apply for re-evaluation, for the simple reason that the writ petitions were pending before this Court. It is stated that some of the petitioners were advised not to do so. Since the task of re-evaluation has, otherwise, been made available by the respondents themselves, it would be appropriate to grant one further indulgence to all such petitioners to make their objections or to apply for re-evaluation, within a period of two weeks from today, along with certified and/or true copy of this order. It is made clear that except to grant this opportunity, no further opportunity would be extended to any of the persons to raise a fresh grievance. Exercise of re-evaluation would be carried out by the Examination Regulatory Authority on the basis of observations, made above, and in accordance with law. Aforesaid guidelines are necessary in order to ensure that the candidates are treated fairly and unnecessary further litigation, in respect of the recruitment itself, could be avoided on the questions already formulated."
5. It also transpires that many a candidate submitted complaints to the State Government for the illegalities and discrepancies committed in conducting the evaluation. The State Government during the pendency of Writ-A No.18235 of 2018 issued a Government Order dated 5.10.2018 permitting all those candidates, who are desirous for re-evaluation of their copies should apply on-line between 11.10.2018 to 20.10.2018.
6. It appears that some of petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition could not apply for re-evaluation within the period stipulated in Government Order dated 5.10.2018, but they were allowed to apply for re-evaluation by this court in Writ-A No.18235 of 2018, the relevant extract of the judgment is already extracted above.
7. The re-evaluation result was declared. After declaration of result of re-evaluation, many a candidate again found discrepancy in re-evaluation of their copy. Accordingly, they approached this Court, challenging the correctness of the re-evaluation in Writ-A No.6420 (Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P.) and other connected writ petitions. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the State Government again issued Government Order dated 18.10.2019 deciding to re-evaluate the copy of all the candidates, who have preferred writ petition before this Court being not satisfied with the result of re-evaluation. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court disposed off Writ-A No.6420 of 2019 along with other connected writ petitions. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-
"In view of aforesaid decision taken by the State Government, present petition is disposed of with direction to Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Allahabad to conduct the re-evaluation of answer book of petitioner in this petition as well as in all connected writ petitions within a period of three months from today strictly in accordance with guidelines issued by this Court in the matter of Aniruddh Narayan Shukla (supra) as well as Radha Devi (supra).
Needless to say that in case some order is passed by the Apex Court in SLP in the matter of Radha Devi (supra), same shall be abide by the "Secretary" while conducting the re-evaluation.
Petitioners are also directed to submit copy of this order along with application in the office of "Secretary" within a period of one month from today to avoid any confusion in re-evaluation of their answer books.
After re-evaluation of answer sheet and declaration of result, "Secretary" is directed to send the result to concern State authority for issuance of appointment letter against the remaining 22211 post of Assistant Teacher as per marks obtained by the petitioner as well as minimum cut off marks within four weeks from the date of declaration of result."
8. The petitioner also submitted application for re-evaluation. On re-evaluation, the marks of the petitioner has increased from 59 to 64. The petitioner being O.B.C. candidate was to secure 67 marks to qualify the examination. Hence, the petitioner was three mark short of minimum qualifying marks after re-evaluation. After the declaration of the result of the re-evaluation, the petitioner deposited Rs.2,000/- for obtaining the scanned copy of his answer copy. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner has received scanned copy in the Month of November, 2019. The petitioner found that though his answer to question no.30, 51, 57, 63, 64 and 133 are correct, but marks in those questions were not awarded, and if the petitioner had been awarded marks against the aforesaid questions, he would have secured 70 marks and would have qualified the examination. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner has come up in the writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-
"i. A writ order or direction in the nature mandamus commanding the respondent to produce original answer key (answer copy) of Booklet Series 'D' of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Coue tans same may be duly compared with the answers given by the petitioner and at least marks be allotted to the petitioner against Question Nos.31, 51, 57, 63, 64 and 133.
ii. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondent to calculate mark against Question Nos. 31, 51, 57, 63, 64 and 133 declare result of the petitioner of Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2018.
iii. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner after being found eligible and qualified in Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2018 and also provided all other consequential benefits as given to other qualified and selected candidates."
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi (supra) has restricted the filing of the application within one month to the petitioners before the court. Thus, the period of one month prescribed by this court in the case of Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi (supra) is not applicable to those candidates who were not before this court in the bunch of petitions decided with the case of Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi (supra). Hence, there is no cut-off date for filing the application for re-evaluation.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further contended that since there is apparent error on the face of record in not awarding the marks to the petitioner against question nos.30, 51, 57, 63, 64 and 133, which have been answered correctly by the petitioner, the petitioner may be permitted to submit application for re-evaluation of his answer-sheet in terms of orders passed by this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi (supra) as non awarding of marks in respect to the answer of the questions correctly answered by the petitioner has caused serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner.
11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel contended that the State Government has decided by Government Order dated 18.10.2019 to re-evaluate the copy of all the candidates, who have preferred writ petitions after declaration of the result of re-evaluation, and in the light of the Government Order dated 18.10.2019 , this court disposed off the writ petition of Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi (supra) and other connected petitions permitting the petitioners to submit application in the Office of 'Secretary' within a period of one month from the date of judgment i.e. 22.10.2019 for re-evaluation of their answer books. Thus, the submission is that if the petitioner was dissatisfied with the result of re-evaluation, he ought to have approached this Court in time to get the benefit of the judgment of this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi (Supra). He submitted that a very vague averment with regard to the fact that the scanned copy has been received by the petitioner in the month of November, 2019 has been made, whereas, the petitioner has not stated in the writ petition as to the date on which and the mode by which he has received the scanned copy.
12. He further submits that this Court cannot permit the candidate to apply for re-evaluation for indefinite period inasmuch as if this process continues indefinitely, the process of selection cannot be brought to a logical end. Thus, the submission is that the cut-off date for making application for re-evaluation was 21.10.2019 i.e. one month period from the date of judgment in the case of Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi (supra), and since the petitioner has not approached within the said period, the relief prayed by the petitioner cannot be granted. He further submits that even otherwise the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of various pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court where the Apex Court held that if there is no provision for re-evaluation, the Court should not permit re-evaluation as a matter of right
13. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
14. This Court while deciding the case of Aniruddh Narayan Shukla (supra) has granted two weeks time to the petitioners in those petition to apply for re-evaluation. The Court further observed that no further liberty would be extended to any candidate to raise such grievance. The Government Order dated 15.10.2018 also granted liberty to all the candidates not satisfied with the marks to apply for re-evaluation. The Board in the light of Government Order dated 15.10.2018 and the case of Aniruddh Narayan Shukla (supra) re-evaluated the copies of all the candidates who had availed the opportunity of re-evaluation.
15. As some of the candidates were dissatisfied with the marks awarded after re-evaluation, they again approached this Court in Writ-A No.6420 of 2019 and other connected writ petitions. The State Government considering the welfare of the candidates again decide to re-evaluate the copy of all the petitioners who being dissatisfied with the result of re-evaluation approached this court.
16. At this stage, it would appropriate to refer paragraph 31 and 32 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranvijay Singh & Ors. 2018 Volume 2 SCC 357, wherein the Apex Court has expressed anguish where the selection of Assistant Teachers could not be brought to a logical end for about eight years. Relevant part of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
"31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question.
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination - whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."
17. As per the law laid down by the Apex court, the selection process has to brought to a logical end, therefore, in the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the time granted by this Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi (supra) should be treated to be cut off date for the purpose of permitting the candidates to apply for re-evaluation.
18. It is also pertinent to mention that if the candidate is allowed to submit application for re-evaluation for indefinite period, then the selection process would never complete and the very purpose of selection is frustrated which is against the various pronouncements of Apex Court, wherein, the Apex, Court has expressed anguish for non completion of the selection process in time.
19. In the case in hand, the petitioner did not approach this Court challenging the result of re-evaluation. The petitioner in order to avail the benefit of judgment of this court in the case of Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi (supra) in paragraph 20 of the writ petition has made a vague averment that he has received scanned copy in the month of November, 2019. The pleadings in this regard lacks material fact as to the date on which he has received scanned copy and the mode by which scanned copy was sent to him. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no cut off date is provided by this Court for making application for re-evaluation is misconceived as the process of re-evaluation cannot be allowed to be continued to infinity.
20. While the judgment was reserved, the counsel for the petition has placed two judgments; one in Special Appeal No. 620 of 2019 (Priya Sharma Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 18.12.2019, and the other judgment in Writ-A No. 19760 of 2019 (Satish Kumar Pandey & Others) decided on 07.01.2019 to contend that the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid judgment.
21. The judgment Special Appeal No. 620 of 2019 has been rendered in different factual context wherein the writ petition filed by the appellant in special appeal was dismissed before the judgment of this Court in Aniruddh Narayan Shukla (supra) case. In the said backdrop, this Court has extended the benefit of the judgment of this Court in Writ-A No.14509 of 2019, thus, the judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No.620 of 2019 is of no help to the petitioner.
22. So far as the other judgment relied upon by counsel for the petitioner in Writ-A No. 19760 of 2019 is concerned, the same has been passed on the basis of judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No.620 of 2019, but this aspect that judgment of Special Appeal No. 620 of 2019 has been rendered in different factual context has not been placed before the court. Further, the said judgment has also not considered the judgment of this Court in Writ-A No.17887 of 2019 (Manju vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) decided on 05.12.2019, wherein this Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by one such candidate, who has approached this Court after the time of one month granted by this Court in Aniruddh Narayan Shukla (supra) case has expired. Thus, the judgment of this Court in Writ-A No. 19760 of 2019 does not come to aid of the petitioner.
23. Thus, in view of the said fact, the writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.01.2020 Ravi Kant