Satendra Kumar Kushwaha (23630 ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9647 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 4 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Kushwaha (23630 Wria 2021)
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Edu. U.P. Lko. And 4 Ors.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Mohan Upadhyay,Amrendra Nath Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant for review and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State.

By the judgment and order under review dated 20.12.2021 passed in Service Single No. 23630 of 2021, titled as 'Satendra Kumar Kushwaha v. State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Education and others' I had dismissed the petition for detailed reasons assigned in my judgment and order dated 20.12.2021 passed in Service Single No. 8056 of 2020, titled as 'Rishabh Mishra and others v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Basic Education, Lucknow and others'.

It is pointed out by learned Counsel for the applicant that the relief sought in the bunch of writ petitions, wherein the leading petition is Service Single No. 8056 of 2020, was about the incorrect key answers in the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2019, whereas the applicant's relief is different from the bunch decided by my judgment and order dated 20.12.2021 in the leading petition. It is pointed out that the relief sought in the present petition by the petitioner, though related to the same recruitment examination, is about re-evaluation of marks, where the claim of the petitioner is that one more mark ought to be awarded in accordance with the answer in the Optical Mark Recognition (for short "OMR") Sheet. It is the petitioner's case that he ought to be awarded 89 marks instead of 88, going by the key answers, as they stand. The petitioner's case is one of re-evaluation and not questioning key answers that was involved in the bunch.

A perusal of the records does indicate that the relief claimed by the petitioner is very different from the one under consideration in the bunch of cases that was decided vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2021 rendered in Service Single No. 8056 of 2020. The petitioner's relief is about re-evaluation of his OMR Sheet relating to the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2019. He does not question the correctness of the key answers, which was the issue involved in the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions.

In the circumstances, the order under review dated 20.12.2021 has been passed on account of an error apparent. The application for review is allowed. The order dated 20.12.2021 passed in Service Single No. 23630 of 2021 is hereby set aside and the writ petition is restored to its original file and number.

Let the writ petition be listed before the appropriate Bench.

Order Date :- 8.8.2022

I. Batabyal

(J.J. Munir, J.)