Allahabad High Court
Harikesh Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 30 June, 2021
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2150 of 2021
Petitioner :- Harikesh Kumar Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Pratap
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Short counter affidavit filed today is taken in the record.
In effect the challenge in this petition is to the revised result declared on 17.02.2019. The main ground of challenge is that the petitioner was not allotted marks for the answer given by him to question No. 98.
It is submitted that the answer of the petitioner was correct and the denial of marks was illegal. The question No. 98 was as follows:
"What type of Sandhi was (sic) is the word 'Sukhartah' ?"
The expert's answer to the aforesaid question and the answer in the model answer sheet was "Vridhi Sandhi"/ "Swar Sandhi". The answer of the petitioner was "Deergh Sandhi".
This Court in Writ A No. 5365 of 2019 (Radha Devi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) held that the correct answer to the said question was "Deergh Sandhi" or "Vridhi Sandhi".
The re-evaluated result was declared on 17.06.2019. The instant writ petition was filed on 22.01.2021. No satisfactory explanation of the delay has been given in the writ petition.
Third party right had accrued in favour of the candidates who were selected. The aforesaid candidates have not been impleaded by the petition. The writ petition is also incompetent on ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.
Most importantly the same issue was decided by this Court in Writ A No. 14663 of 2020 (Neetu Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein the learned Single Judge declined to grant relief after considering Radha Devi (supra). The writ petition was dismissed on the foot of following reasons:
"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. 'सुखार्तः' can either be a 'दीर्घ सन्धि' or a 'वृद्धि सन्धि ' but not both. Many candidates who had answered the सन्धि in 'सुखार्तः' to be 'वृद्धि सन्धि', 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 'सुखार्तः' to be 'दीर्घ सन्धि' should be given one additional mark but one marks of those who have answered 'सुखार्तः' to be 'वृद्धि सन्धि' 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 'वृद्धि सन्धि' 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."
The judgment rendered in Neetu Yadav (supra) is a binding precedent and squarely applies to this case.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.6.2021
Nadeem Ahmad
