Allahabad High Court
Neetu Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 22 February, 2021
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14663 of 2020
Petitioner :- Neetu Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
The present writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to further re-valuate the answer-sheet of the petitioner and mark as correct the answer given by him to question no. 57 of the Booklet Series - 'D' allotted to him and to declare him selected in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2018 and consequently issue an appointment letter to him after giving him one marks for the answer.
The facts of the case are that question no. 57 of the Booklet Series - 'D' was that "what type of ????? was the word '????????'?" The expert answer to the aforesaid question was that '????????' was '?????? ?????'. The answer given by the petitioner is that the said word was '????? ?????'. Previously the dispute regarding the correct answer to question no. 57 came before this Court and this Court vide its order dated 3.5.2019 passed in Writ - A No. 5365 of 2019 (Radha Devi & 2 Ors. vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.) held that the opinion of the expert was wrong and the correct answer was '????? ?????' and not '?????? ?????'. The petitioner claims that after the first re-evaluation, she got 66 marks while the qualifying marks are 67 and in case, the petitioner is given one marks for the said answer, she would qualify the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2018.
The petitioner relies on the aforesaid judgment of this Court in support of the relief claimed by her.
A perusal of the judgment in Radha Devi (supra) shows that the expert answer has been declared as wrong by this Court relying on certain reference materials provided by the petitioner. The authenticity or the reliability of the said reference material as an expert material has not been stated in the judgment of this Court. In Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay 2011 (8) SCC 497 and High Court of Tripura vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & Ors. 2019 (16) SCC 663, it was held by the Supreme Court that in cases of dispute on the correctness of answers, the same has to be resolved in favour of the Examining Body and the courts should refrain from interfering in expert opinion unless the same is perverse. However, even assuming that the answer given by the petitioner is correct as held in Radha Devi (supra), no writ as prayed by the petitioner can be issued for reasons stated hereinafter.
It is evident from the judgment of this Court in Radha Devi (supra) that only one of the two answers are correct, i.e., either the expert opinion is correct or the opinion of the Court in Radha Devi (supra) is correct. '????????' can either be a '????? ?????' or a '?????? ?????' but not both. Many candidates who had answered the ????? in ???????? to be ?????? ?????, may have got just 67 marks, i.e, the qualifying marks. The logical conclusion of Radha Devi (supra) would be to reduce the marks of such candidates after deducting one marks from the total marks obtained by them. It is not only that the candidates whose answer matches the opinion of this Court as given in Radha Devi (supra), i.e., who have answered '????????' to be '????? ?????' should be given one additional mark but one marks of those who have answered'????????' to be '?????? ?????' should be deducted. Such deductions would be necessary as the examination is a competitive examination and the deduction of one mark of the candidates whose answers tally the expert opinion may result in bringing down the merit benefiting the candidates who had got 66 marks but have answered the question either wrong or may have left the question unanswered.
In cases where the expert answer has been declared wrong by the Court, a fresh evaluation of all the answer-sheets would be required to decide the inter se merit of different candidates. In case, this Court follows Radha Devi (supra) and passes a similar order as passed in Radha Devi (supra), the Court would have to direct a re-evaluation of the answer-sheets of all candidates who had appeared in the Recruitment Examination, 2018, especially those who have been declared successful on the basis of the expert answer.
Further, from the averments made in the writ petition, it is evident that the first results had been declared on 13.8.2018 and the re-evaluated result of the petitioner was declared on 17.2.2020. It is too late in the day to direct a re-evaluation of the answer-sheets of all the candidates, so far as question no. 57 is concerned and to make a fresh assessment of merit as many candidates who have been declared selected after getting 67 marks by answering question no. 57 as '?????? ?????' must have been issued appointment letters and may have probably joined on their post. Any such order would unsettle the whole process of appointment started through the Recruitment Examination.
In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed for. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.2.2021
Satyam
