Sarveshvari Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 5541 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Chief Justice's Court
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 614 of 2019
 

 
Appellant :- Sarveshvari Mishra
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Pramod Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ashok Kumar Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

This appeal is preferred to examine correctness of order dated 29.04.2019 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 5882 of 2019 (Sarveshvari Mishra Versus State of U.P. and others).

Succinctly, facts of the case are that the appellant participated in Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2018. In the examination aforesaid, she failed to acquire the required cut-off marks. The appellant aggrieved by the same submitted a representation to the Authority competent on 04.10.2019 for re-evaluation of her answer-sheet.

It was specifically pointed out that a question relating to opposite of "O;wg" has not been correctly examined. According to the appellant, she is entitled to have one mark against the question aforesaid. Being failed to get the answer-sheet re-evaluated, she preferred a petition for writ that came to be dismissed under the order impugned dated 29.04.2019. Learned Single Bench noticed that the application submitted by the petitioner was beyond the time limit prescribed and, therefore, the re-evaluation was rightly not made.

From perusal of the facts stated in the petition for writ and also the written instructions availed by learned Standing Counsel, it appears that the respondents did not re-evaluate the answer-sheets being the application not submitted online.

We failed to understand that why the process of re-evaluation was confined to online application only. An application received otherwise, if on its face point outs that some error occurred then the better course is to remove that, instead of construing the same on hyper-technical ground. It is also well settled that in public employment, it is the merit that must prevail. The entitlement of the appellant to have one mark against the question concerned is quite apparent as per the answer given in the answer-key.

In view of it, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 29.04.2019 passed by learned Single Bench is set aside. The writ petition is disposed of with direction to the Authority competent to re-evaluate answer-sheet of the appellant and to declare her result afresh.

It is made clear that directions given with regard to re-evaluation are specifically for the present appellant only and not in rem.

Order Date :- 8.7.2019

Shubham

(Vivek Varma, J.)       (Govind Mathur, C.J.)