Allahabad High Court
Priyanka vs The State Of U.P. Through The ... on 22 March, 2021
Bench: Manoj Misra, Rajiv Joshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 171 of 2021
Appellant :- Priyanka
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Through The Additional Chief Secretary And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shivendu Ojha,Radha Kant Ojha (Senior Adv),Shatrughan Sonwal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents; and have perused the record.
This intra court appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.11654 of 2020 by which the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed.
On 22.02.2021, while entertaining this appeal, a detailed order was passed noticing the facts of the case and arguments raised. Upon consideration of the submissions, a direction was issued requiring the respondents to get question No.58 re-evaluated by a Professor of the Sanskrit Department, University of Allahabad and to submit evaluation report in a sealed cover. The order dated 22.02.2020 is extracted below:-
"The appellant had filed Writ A No. 11654 of 2020 for a direction upon the respondent authorities to revisit the result after going through the copy of the petitioner and after deciding the objection filed by the petitioner with respect to answer of question Nos. 20, 58 and 135.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, by order dated 10.12.2020, by observing that the answer key was revised on multiple occasions pursuant to the directions issued by the Court on earlier writ petitions as well as decisions taken by the respondent themselves and, upon comparison of the answer script of the petitioner with the answer key published by the respondents, the answer rendered by the petitioner to question nos. 20, 58 and 135 were incorrect. Hence, the petition was liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the aforesaid questions as well as answers rendered to those questions by the petitioner and the answer key for those questions.
In respect of question no. 20, we find that the answer rendered by the petitioner is not complete and is not in conformity with the model answer and, therefore, to that extent, we find no such error in the marks awarded. Similarly, in respect of question no. 135, there appears an ambiguous answer rendered by the petitioner including overwriting and, therefore, the answer could be said to be not in conformity with the answer key. On that count also we find no infirmity in the result. In respect of answer to question no. 58, we find that the answer key contains one word which is "Bahuratna" at page 68 of the paper book. The answer rendered by the petitioner to question no. 58 includes that term "Bahuratna" in a sentence.
Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the answer rendered by examinees were not in OMR sheet where, by coloring or filling the blanks or dots, one out of many answers is selected. Here, the examinees were to write the answer in their own words therefore the substance of the answer had to be examined whether they were substantially correct even though they may be expressed in different words than found in the answer key.
In that context, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a learned Single Judge decision of this Court in Writ A No. 18235 of 2018, dated 30.10.2018, which arises out of the same examination, so as to contend that the learned Single Judge had accepted that the substance of the answer had to be examined and not whether it is strictly in what the answer key had offered.
Learned counsel for the appellant further urged that the petitioner has secured 66 marks and if he is awarded '1' mark he would fall at the level of cut off for selection and would be entitled to the benefit of selection.
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the judgment and order of this court dated 30.10.2018 passed in Writ A No. 18235 of 2018 and by keeping in mind that we are not in a position to assess the correctness of the answer rendered by the appellant to question no. 58, we deem it appropriate to require the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayagraj to get the answer rendered by the petitioner to question no. 58 evaluated by a Professor of the Sanskrit Department of the University of Allahabad within three weeks from today and submit his evaluation report in a sealed cover before us on 22.03.2021.
Put up, as fresh, on 22.03.2021.
Let a copy of this order be provided to the learned Standing Counsel for compliance."
Consequent to the above order, the respondents have submitted the answer sheet of the appellant, particularly with reference to question No.58 of question paper of 'D" Series, for re-evaluation by Professor of Sanskrit Department of Allahabad University.
The report of the Professor has been placed before us in a sealed cover.
Upon a perusal of the report dated 15.03.2021, we find that the answer to question No.58 rendered by the appellant was incorrect and she was not entitled to any marks for that answer.
As we do not find any other good ground for re-evaluation of the answer script, keeping in mind the report of the Professor of Sanskrit Department of Allahabad University, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is consequently dismissed.
The report of the Professor shall be retained on record.
Order Date :- 22.3.2021
AKShukla/-
