Allahabad High Court
Prabhu Narayan Upadhyay vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. ... on 23 March, 2021
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 8203 of 2021
Petitioner :- Prabhu Narayan Upadhyay
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Rural Devlp. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidhu Bhushan Kalia,Jyotika Yog,Vivek Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1,2 and 3 and Sri Gaurav Melhotra, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the option given by the petitioner for question no.77 of Booklet Series -'A' to be correct and award one more marks to the petitioner in the written-examination and accordingly amend final result of the petitioner with further prayer that consideration of claim of appointment on the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari against the available vacancy advertised in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 18.1.2016.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in regard to the same question, Writ Petition No.34270 (SS) of 2019 (Priyatam Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others) was filed wherein question no.75 of C series was taken into consideration and on the basis of material placed before this Court it was found that option 'C' is the correct answer and thereafter, Expert was called for from Lucknow University to give his opinion in regard to the question. Thereafter, a writ petition was taken up on 18.12.2019 wherein the opinion given by the Professor was taken into account holding that option 'C' of question no.75 of C series is correct answer. It is however made clear that question no.75 of Booklet Series-'C' and question no.77 of Booklet Series-'A' is the same question. This Court noticed the opinion of the export produced by counsel for the Lucknow University with further direction vide order dated 18.2.2019. Relevant operation of observations is quoted below:
?In compliance of the aforesaid order Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the Lucknow University has produced the expert opinion regarding the question no. 75 of 'C Series' under sealed cover. After opening the sealed cover the expert opinion has been read which clarifies that the correct answer of aforesaid question is answer no. 'C' inasmuch as the answer 'Humayun nama- Humayun' is wrong. The aforesaid expert opinion is taken on record. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he answered option 'C' but as per final answer key the correct answer is 'B'.
In view of the expert opinion the answer of final answer key is incorrect and the answer so given by the petitioner is correct.
Sri Vivek Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that if the aforesaid answer of the petitioner is treated as correct answer, he would have been declared successful for the reason that he has obtained 76 marks whereas the cut off marks of the selected candidate are 77 marks. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid expert opinion he may be treated as successful candidate and accordingly his candidature may be considered for appointment on the post of Gram Vikas Adhikari pursuant to advertisement dated 18.1.2016.
Sri Vivek Pandey has further submitted that as per letter dated 4.2.2019 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Gram Vikas, U.P., Annexure no. 7, still 169 vacancies of the aforesaid posts are vacant and the candidature of the petitioner be considered for appointment on the said post.
In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances there may be a circumstance that on the basis of final answer key relating to question no. 75 of 'C Series' couple of candidates have been selected and appointed on the posts in question giving wrong answer. There may be couple of candidates whose answer is correct as per the expert opinion but have been considered by the examining body as wrong, are not selected if they are lacking only one mark to be selected.
Sri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned counsel for the Commission has submitted that he may be given 10 days time to intimate this fact to the Commission so that the appropriate decision could be taken in the light of these circumstances.
Learned State Counsel has also submitted that unless any decision is taken by the Commission in the light of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner may not be appointed on the post in question.
Therefore, Sri Jogendra Nath Verma is granted 10 days time to apprise the Commission about the fact that as per the expert opinion the answer of question no. 75 of 'C Series' as per the final answer key is incorrect and thereafter the appropriate decision be taken by the Commission.
Let the counter affidavit be filed within a period of three weeks, rejoinder affidavit, if any may be filed within one week thereafter.
List this petition on 16.1.2020 within top ten cases to enable the learned counsel for the Selection Board to produce the relevant letter before the Court as to what decision has been taken in the issue in question.
Till the next date of listing one post may be kept reserved for the petitioner, if it is available for this recruitment.
Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the Lucknow University shall not appear in this case unless called for.
When the case is next listed name of Sri Jogendra Nath Verma shall be shown as counsel for the opposite party no. 3. ?
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that thereafter, the similar controversy came for consideration before Allahabad High Court and the Court refused to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the writ petition was dismissed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged in Special Appeal Defective No.1186 of 2020 which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court affirming the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. Learned counsel in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances submits that the action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary in nature. He next submits that once this Court under the opinion of the Expert, was of the opinion that question no.77 sub-clause (c) is the correct answer, then the candidature of the petitioner would have been considered in the light of opinion given by the Expert. He next submits that Division Bench of this Court while examining the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has recorded that the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence before the learned Single Judge or before Hon?ble Division Bench to establish that question 77-C is the correct finding. He next submits that here in the present writ petition, the petitioner has placed sufficient material to establish his claim to establish that question no.77-C is the correct answer.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent no.4 submits that after the interim order passed by this Court, the matter was placed before the Expert Committee of two Universities wherein the Expert Committee submitted its opinion that question no.77-B is the correct answer. He placed the same which may be taken on record.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
8. Legal position in regard to interference in such type of matter has been challenged before this Court as well as by the Apex Court wherein it has been settled that the Court has no power to examine the correctness of the answers in regard to a recruitment proceedings conducted by the Expert Body. The opinion of the Expert Committee is the final opinion and the Court should not interference in the matter.
9. On perusal of the judgments relied upon wherein similar controversy was under consideration before the Allahabad High Court, Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in Special Appeal have taken same view and dismissed the writ petition and appeal.
10. In view of the above, this Court refuses to re-agitate the controversy which has already been set at rest at this stage.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.3.2021
GK Sinha
