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 0, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Damyanti vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. on 19 January, 2021

Author: Sunita Agarwal

Bench: Sunita Agarwal





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 36
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 478 of 2021
 
Petitioner :- Damyanti
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Pandey,Prabhakar Awasthi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
 

Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the all the respondents.

By means of the present petition, the petitioner herein is challenging the re-evaluation result of the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2018 declared on 22.10.2019. In two rounds of litigation initiated by the candidate, certain other directions were issued by this Court for re-evaluation of the answer books taking non-hyper technical approach, considering the answers given by the candidates in correct perspective. Minor variations in the answers given by the candidates were required to be ignored.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had duly applied for re-evaluation of the answer books raising objections with regard to question nos. 12, 17, 53, 71, 107, 122 & 147 of Booklet 'B'.

It is contended that the answers given by the petitioners are close to the key answers displayed by the respondents. Marks for the aforesaid questions are required to be assigned to the petition treating the answer given by him as correct.

Having perused the averments made in para '27' of the writ petition, wherein a tabulation chart has been given narrating the key answers and the answers given by the petitioners, this Court does not find any error in the re-evaluation result.

The objection raised by the petitioner that hyper technical view has been adopted while evaluating the question no.17 of question Booklet 'B', which is the same as of question no.99 of question Booklet 'A', is not substantiated from the perusal of the answer given by the petitioner.

No merit is found in the writ petition.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 19.1.2021 P Kesari