Allahabad High Court
Subodh Kumar & Ors. vs State Of U.P.Thru Secy. Rural ... on 22 June, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Yadav, Chief Justice, Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 181 of 2021
Appellant :- Subodh Kumar & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Secy. Rural Development Lko & Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Himanshu Raghave
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
1. Matter is taken up through video conferencing.
2. Heard Sri Himanshu Raghave, learned Counsel for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3-Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission.
3. This intra Court appeal has been filed by appellants/writ petitioners, challenging the judgment and order dated 02.03.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 2503 (S/B) of 2019 : Amar Pal Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, granted liberty to the appellants/writ petitioners to take such other remedy as may be available to them in law, if they are so advised.
4. Pursuant to the advertisement No. 03-Pariksha/2016 issued by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection Commission, Lucknow for filling up 3133 vacant posts of Village Development Officer, appellants/writ petitioners applied for the post of Village Development Officer. After following due process of selection, final result was declared vide notice dated 20.07.2018 published by Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection Commission, Lucknow but as the name of appellants/writ petitioners were not in the select list, they filed writ petition no. 2503 (S/B) of 2019 by taking a plea that writ petitioners have performed better than the marks awarded to them and, hence, there appear to be a tampering in their OMR Sheets.
5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as placing reliance upon judgments of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2018 (2) SCC 357, H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur reported in 2010 (6) SCC 759 and Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta reported in 1983 (4) SCC 309, dismissed the writ petition and granted liberty to the writ petitioners to take such other remedy as may be available to them in law, by the judgment and order dated 02.03.2021, inter alia on the ground that the questions of forgery, fraud and tampering as raised in the present case would require elaborate evidence and are not capable of summary adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that while dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra), H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur (supra) and Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta (supra) but actually the aforesaid judgments are not applicable in the present case as the aforesaid judgments are in respect of challenge to questions and answers. His submission is that after availing scanned copies of their respective OMR sheets, appellants found that their OMR sheets were tampered as in the OMR Sheets, there is circles darkened which the writ petitioners did not do whereas the circles darkened by them have been rubbed out. In these backdrops of the matter, his submission is that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition.
7. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 has opposed the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants and argued that as the writ petitioners/ appellants could not get the marks as per their apprehension and got unsuccessful in the examination, they filed writ petition by making bald allegations that tampering has been done with their OMR sheets. His submission is that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and, therefore, the present special appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record, we are of the view that questions as to which circles in the OMR Sheets having been darkened and which circles in the OMR Sheets having not been darkened by the appellants at the time of examination and further the darkened circles have subsequently been rubbed out in the OMR Sheets as alleged by the appellants, cannot be looked into in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as these questions are the disputed questions of fact, hence the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the questions of forgery, fraud and tampering in the OMR Sheets require elaborate evidence and same cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has rightly dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order.
9. Even otherwise, on query being made from the learned Counsel for the appellants as to whether in the writ petition, they have alleged for any mala fide against any person, who had tampered their respective OMR Sheets or whether such person(s) was the party/respondent in the writ petition, he fairly admitted that no such plea of mala fide was raised before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition nor the appellants have made such person(s) as a party/respondent in the writ petition against whom allegation of tampering in the OMR sheets have been made.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference.
11. This intra court appeal is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.6.2021
Ajit/-
