Allahabad High Court
Vagish Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 February, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 107 of 2021
Appellant :- Vagish Mishra
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajkapoor Upadhyay,R.P.S. Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Order on Exemption Application
The application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the order of the High Court is allowed.
The defect stands cured.
Order on Appeal
By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 25.11.2020 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant petitioner was dismissed.
It is a case where selection on the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Sanskrit) was held by the respondents. Appellant petitioner was having objection to the answers of question nos. 2, 35, 67 and 112 of the booklet 'C' series. He made a request to send the objections to the answers for expert opinion. When the prayer was not accepted, writ petition was filed. On the direction of the Court, the respondents send the instructions and produced before the Court. It was to show that the objection to the answers has already been assessed by the expert in reference to the similar objection raised by the other candidates. In view of the above, writ petition preferred by the appellant petitioner was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant petitioner submits that dismissal of the writ petition is on misstatement of fact of the respondents. The objection to the answer raised by the petitioner was never sent for expert opinion, thus, the judgment of learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant petitioner and perused the record.
The record shows that opinion on objection to question nos. 2, 35, 67 and 112 of the booklet 'C' series was taken by the respondents though in reference to the other candidates but therein answers with option B, C, B and C respectively for questions were taken to be correct. Appellant petitioner did not opted for the answer given above for respective questions.
In the light of the aforesaid, we do not find any misstatement of fact by the respondents though in the instructions produced by the respondents it was specifically mentioned that objection raised by the appellant petitioner were evaluated by the expert though on the objection raised by the other candidates. The fact remains that options given by the selecting agency were found to be correct and no change in the answer was found.
Keeping in mind the aforesaid, we find no merit in the appeal so as to cause interference in the judgment of learned Single Judge. Appeal fails and, accordingly, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021
Shekhar
