Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 March, 2021
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3677 of 2021
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Imtiyaj Ali,Murtuza Ali
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Imtiyaj Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.N.Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission.
The present writ petition is being preferred for a mandamus commanding the second respondent U.P. Public Service Commission to produce the answer sheet of the petitioner pertaining to Block Education Officer Mains Exam 2019, held on 6.12.2020 in pursuance of Advertisement No. A-4/E-1/2019 to ascertain proper computation of mark awarded to the petitioner.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 16.9.2019 passed in Writ A No. 13943 of 2019 (Shah Alam Khan Vs. U.P.Public Service Commission And 2 Another), wherein, Shah Alam Khan has approached to this Court seeking his answer books of the main examination be reevaluated and supplied to him. The said aspect of the matter has been considered by the Division Bench in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Mradul Mishra Vs. Chairman U.P.Public Service Commission Allahabad and Another (Civil Appeal No. 6723 of 2018) and proceeded to pass detailed order to the following effect.
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner appeared in the main examination of U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division),2018. He has not been successful and has not been selected.
He has filed this petition seeking a direction that his answer books of the main examination be reevaluated and supplied to him.
The prayer of re-evaluation of the answer sheets cannot be accepted in the absence of any provision in this regard which leaves us with the issue of supply or inspection of answer books.
The petitioner in support of the above submission has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court dated 16th July, 2018 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6723 of 2018 Mradul Mishra Vs. Chairman U.P. Public Service Commission Allahabad and Another. The aforesaid decision opines that permitting a candidate to inspect answer sheet does not involve any public interest and nor does it even affect the efficient operation of the Government. The other issue such as that confidentiality of sensitive information have been dealt with in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others (2011) 8 SCC 497 and, therefore, the candidates are entitled to inspect the answer sheet subject to maintaining confidentiality of the examiner.
In the case of Union Public Service Commission and Others Vs. Angesh Kumar and Others (2018) 4 SCC 530, the Apex Court laid down that the marks of Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically but only where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court can certainly direct for giving the information so required.
The above decision is only with regard to furnishing of information and not with regard to showing or supplying the answer books to the candidate.
In the case of Mradul Mishra (supra), the Apex Court has ruled that the candidates are entitled to inspect the answer sheets.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the petitioner is asking for inspecting the answer sheets of the main examination, we are of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to the same subject to maintaining of the confidentiality of the examiner. Accordingly a writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents to allow the petitioner to inspect the answer books on a given date which may be convenient to both the parties.
The writ petition stands disposed off. "
In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the similar indulgence may also be accorded to the petitioner.
Per contra, Sri M.N.Singh, learned counsel for the U.P. Public Service Commission raised three-fold objections. Firstly, without exhausting procedure under Right To Information Act present writ petition is preferred whereas necessary information may be obtained under Right To Information Act. Secondly, as per communication dated 30.1.2021 made by the Secretary (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition), it is apparent that on-going examination is in the midst of the process and in case the relief at this stage, is accorded to the petitioner, it would create the complete chaos and also hamper confidentiality of the examination. Thirdly, in the aforementioned circumstances, the matter is distinguishable with the case of Mradul Mishra (supra).
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds force in the arguments so advanced by Sri M.N.Singh, learned counsel for the U.P. Public Service Commission. Admittedly the examination is going on in the midst of the process, no such positive direction can be issued at this stage. However, it is always open for the petitioner to move an appropriate application stricly in accordance with law at appropriate stage for redressal of his grievance.
With the aforesaid leave, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.3.2021
A.K.Srivastava
