Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Sachan (In Wria 3975 Of ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 20 July, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 336 of 2022
Appellant :- Jitendra Sachan (In Wria 3975 Of 2022)
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical And Health Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shrawan Kumar,Chunnu Lal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shubham Tripathi
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel representing the respondents.
Under challenge in this special appeal is the judgment and order dated 30.06.2022 passed in Writ-A No.3975 of 2022 which was dismissed by learned Single Judge observing therein that the learned counsel for the respondents had provided a copy of the answer sheet to the appellant-petitioner during the course of hearing of the writ petition itself. Now the grievance of the appellant is that what was shown or given to the appellant-petitioner during the course of hearing of writ petition was a document which has been annexed at pages 80 to 82 of this special appeal which, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is not the answer sheet rather it is a document which only discloses the response of the candidate i.e. the appellant-petitioner to a particular question and its correct answer.
The entire submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner appears to be highly misconceived. It has been informed by the learned counsel representing the respondents that the examination was conducted online which in fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. It has also been stated that the process of online examination was that the question paper made available online to the candidate contained multiple choice questions with four possible answers and the candidate was required to indicate the correct answer out of the options of answers indicated in the question paper.
We have perused the document annexed at pages 80 to 82 of this special appeal. What we find is that the said document contains information relating to question I.D., the section name (which means subject), the response indicated by the appellant-petitioner to a particular question and the correct answer corresponding to the question concerned.
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the document shown to the appellant-petitioner during course of hearing of the writ petition did not disclose the particular question and corresponding possible answers which deprived the appellant-petitioner to ascertain as to whether the correct answer as supplied to him was in fact correct or not.
When we enquired from the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether there is any provision permitting a candidate to get access to the question paper alongwith the corresponding possible answers after completion of the examination, he has completely failed to show any such provision.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by learned Single Judge. This special appeal is hereby dismissed. However, before parting we can only observe that the petitioner in fact can avail the copy of the question paper containing the individual questions and the probable/possible answers corresponding to individual questions as indicated during the online examination by seeking remedy under Right to Information Act. Accordingly, in case the appellant makes any such application under the Right to Information Act, the same shall be considered by the respondents, if Right to Information Act is applicable.
Order Date :- 20.7.2022
Haseen U.
