Satyendra Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 4556 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 35
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1954 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Yadav
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranesh Kumar Mishra,Anurag Agrahari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner.

The present writ petition has been filed to quash the final answer key dated 31.1.2020 issued regarding question nos. 83 and 124 of Series 'A' of the Question Booklet of UPTET - 2019.

The final answer key declares the option nos. 2 and 3 as the correct answer to question no. 83 and option no. 4 as the correct answer to question no. 124.

The petitioner has answered option no. 1 and option no. 2 as the correct answers to question nos. 83 and 124.

The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any absurdity in the correct answers as declared in the final answer key.

In view of the judgments of the Supreme 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, any controversy regarding the correct answer to a question has to be decided in favour of the examining body. This Court cannot substitute its own opinion for the opinion of the experts.

The counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment and order dated 19.12.2018 passed by this Court in Writ - A No. 25791 of 2018 (Smt. Shimla Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) to plead that in case the aforesaid questions are deleted, the petitioner shall be entitled to two additional marks and would, therefore, qualify in the examination. In support of his argument, the petitioner has relied on paragraph no. 44 of the aforesaid judgment.

No case is made out to delete question nos. 83 & 124 and the observations in Smt. Shimla Singh (supra) regarding allotment of additional marks for questions which have more than one correct options is restricted only to those cases where the answer of the petitioner identifies with any of the correct options given in the answer key. In the present case, as noted above, the answer of the petitioner to question no. 83 did not identify with either of the correct options declared in the final answer key. No case has been made out for deleting the said question so as to entitle the petitioner to additional marks as stipulated in Shimla Singh (supra). The petitioner cannot be awarded one additional mark only to enable him to qualify in the examinations.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed.

Order Date :- 24.3.2021

Satyam