Pushkar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2343 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2618 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Pushkar Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education, Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjai Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

1. Heard.

2. Instant petition has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents to reevaluate the answer sheets of the petitioner and declare the result.

3. The facts set forth by the petitioner are that the examination of TET was held in January 2022. The petitioner had answered question no.10 to the best of his ability and the answer given by him was (4). The model answers were uploaded on the official website of the authority on 27.01.2022 wherein the answer to question no.10 was indicated as (1). Admittedly the petitioner did not submit any objections to the said model answers. It was only when the result was declared and the petitioner obtained 88 marks that he submitted a representation indicating that answer to question no.10 was wrongly given by the Board and that correct answer should be (4). Not finding any success with the Board the instant petition has been filed.

4. Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Board, submits that once the model answers were uploaded on the official website of the Board on 27.01.2022 and the time to submit objections to the said model answers was from 28.01.2022 to 01.02.2022 to which admittedly the petitioner did not submit any objections as such at this stage more particularly when the result has been declared, the instant petition would not be maintainable.

5. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Aditya Dixit vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No.24591 (SS) of 2019 decided on 17.10.2019, wherein this issue was examined and the Court has held that in case a candidate has not submitted objections against the model answers then at a belated stage he cannot be permitted to approach the Court. For the sake of convenience, relevant paragraphs of the judgment in the case of Aditya Dixit (supra) are reproduced below:-

7. From perusal of the records, it comes out that the petitioner had appeared in the examination for the post of Assistant Teacher in the year 2018. The model answer key had been uploaded by the respondents on the official website on 6.6.2018 and the time frame for submission of the objections against the same was given from 6.6.2018 to 9.6.2018. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to submit any objection against the said model answers. It is only when the petitioner found it fit to apply for a scanned copy of his answer sheet on 28.08.2018 and the same having been supplied to him on 02.08.2019 that the petitioner has approached this Court praying for reevaluation of question nos. 13 and 120.

8. This aspect of the matter has already been considered threadbare by this Court in the case of Hanumant Kumar Tiwari (supra) wherein this Court after considering the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) has held as under:-

10. From perusal of record and on the basis of arguments, it clearly comes out that the examination for Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination was held some time in the month of May/June 2018. The answer key had been uploaded on 06.06.2018. A time frame of submitting objections against the said answer key had been given from 06.06.2018 to 09.06.2018. From the pleadings on record, it does not come out that the petitioner ever submitted his objection against the answer to Question No. 10 as indicated in the answer key meaning thereby that he was perfectly satisfied with the answer that had been given by him viz-a-viz the answer key that had been uploaded which did not reflect that the answer given by the petitioner as correct. The petitioner thereafter had applied for scanned copy on 14.09.2018 which has only been given to him on 14.08.2019. Taking the said to be a license to approach this Court, the petitioner is now approaching this Court despite the aforesaid window frame of submitting the objections against the answer key having expired more than from a year back. Thus, merely because the scanned copy has been given to him on 14.08.2019 will not and cannot resile from the fact that the petitioner has failed to avail of the window that had been given to him by the respondents themselves for submitting his objections against the answer key.

11. Further, a perusal of the answer given by the petitioner to question no.10 indicates that the petitioner has given answer as "DEERGHA SANDHI" (nh?kZ lfU/k). Admittedly, the answer key which was uploaded by the respondents indicated the answer of the said question as "VRIDHI SANDHI/SWAR SANDHI" (o`f/k lfU/[email protected] lfU/k). The petitioner admittedly did not submit any objection within the time frame/window that had been given by the respondents i.e. from 06.06.2018 till 09.06.2018 meaning thereby that he admitted to himself that he has given a wrong answer and was satisfied that the answer to the said question uploaded by the respondents in the answer key was correct. The argument that the petitioner only came to know about the answer given by him when he was supplied with the scanned copy of the answer sheet and had no knowledge about the answer given by him earlier gets belied by the conduct of the petitioner himself inasmuch as in terms of instruction no.10 of the answer booklet, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the petition, every candidate had an option of asking for a carbon sheet from the Invigilator in order to keep a duplicate of the answers being given by the candidate. There is no pleading in the petition to indicate that the said option was ever exercised by the petitioner and thus validly he cannot now be allowed to approach this Court after expiry of the time frame fixed by the respondents for submitting of objections to the answer key on the ground that the scanned copy has only been given to him on 14.08.2019. Even otherwise, it is not the case that a candidate could not submit his objection to the uploaded answer key in the absence of having a scanned copy of the answer sheet. Thus, the said argument merits to be rejected.

12. ......

13. .....

14. Before parting with the case, this Court would also like to place on record that the approach of the petitioner to the Court seeking addition of marks on the basis of the scanned copy of answer sheet having only been made available in August 2019 despite the aforesaid window of submitting of objections against the answer key having lapsed more than a year back cannot be appreciated as any attempt to entertain the petition would open a flood gate of litigation from such candidates who could always apply for scanned copies of their answer keys at any stretch of time in future and thereafter challenge their non-selection on the basis of such scanned copies meaning thereby that there would be no end to litigation pertaining to a selection.

15. In this regard, apt would be to quote the observations of the Apex Court in the judgment of Ran Vijay Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others - (2018) 2 SCC 357, which discussed the scope of judicial review and the limits of Court's inquiring under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as under:-

"32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination - whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."

16. Keeping in view the above discussion, no case for interference is made out and the petition is dismissed.

9. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion and admittedly the petitioner having failed to submit any objection against the model answers, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed.

6. Considering the aforesaid as well as the judgment of this Court in the case of Aditya Dixit (supra), no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 9.5.2022

A. Katiyar