Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 38]

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. And 3 Others vs Radha Devi And 2 Others on 20 August, 2019

Bench: Vikram Nath, Pankaj Bhatia





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 55
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 756 of 2019
 

 
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- Radha Devi And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Lal Dev
 

 
Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.
 

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

There is a delay of 59 days in filing the appeal. This application has been filed to condone the delay. Cause shown for the delay has been satisfactorily explained.

There is no objection from the side of the respondents.

Delay condonation application is allowed and the delay is condoned.

Office is directed to allot the regular number to this appeal.

Order on Appeal Heard Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Pankaj Rai, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the State-appellant and Sri Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Avnish Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 17.5.2019 passed in Writ - A No. 5365 of 2019 whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the correction of the result of the petitioner therein in respect to two questions. The two questions i.e. Question Nos. 10 and 55, the answer given by the candidate and Model Answers are quoted herein below:

Q. No. 10 : ^^lq[kkrZ%^^ esa dkSu lh lfU/k gS \ The answer given by the petitioner is : nh?kZ lfU/k while the model answer is : o`f} lfU/k@Loj LkfU/kA Q. No. 55 : The Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) is established for the education of which type of children ?
^Hkkjrh; iquZokl ifj"kn^ dh LFkkiuk fdl izdkj ds cPpksa ds f'k{kk ds fy, nh xbZ gS \ The answer given by the petitioner is : 'fiNM+s ckydkas ds fy, ,oa fof'k"V ckydksa' while the model answer is : 'fodykax@fnO;kax cPpksa gsrq@'kkjhfjd :i ls v{ke@fof'k"V ckyd@ih0MCyw0Mh0@fu'kDr@v{ke'A Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, has brought to our notice the earlier order passed in this writ petition being order dated 3.5.2019 wherein learned Single Judge had held that the model answer to Question No. 10 was a wrong answer based upon the reference material which was brought before the Court to demonstrate that the correct answer is what was given by the petitioner and not as was indicated in the model answer.
With regard to Question No. 55, learned Single Judge found that the answer was correct as per the model answer and on that basis the Court had directed for addition of two marks. The State Government has not challenged the order dated 3.5.2019 as such the said order is not to be adjudicated. As regards the addition for the answer given of Question No. 55 the same is squarely covered by our decision in Special Appeal No. 902 of 2019 (State of U.P. And 3 Others vs. Pradeep Kumar) and two other connected appeals, decided on 13.8.2019. In view of the fact that the order dated 3.5.2019 is not under challenge, we hold that there is no infirmity in the judgement and order dated 17.5.2019, as a restult thereof, special appeal is liable to be dismissed.
The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
 
Order Date :- 20.8.2019
 
Puspendra
 

 
(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)      (Vikram Nath,J.)