Allahabad High Court
Kavindra Prasad Patel vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 24 May, 2022
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 394 of 2022
Appellant :- Kavindra Prasad Patel
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Srivastava,Aditiya Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
This Intra-Court Appeal has been filed questioning the judgment and order dated 20.4.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 5673 of 2022 (Kavindra Prasad Patel versus State of U.P. and 2 others) whereby the writ petition has been consigned to records lacking merits.
The writ petition was filed by an unsuccessful petitioner questioning the result of selection examination held by the Electricity Services Commission amongst others for the post of Technician Grade-II-Fitter on the ground that in the Master Answer Key published in respect of Question No. 120 (Question ID No. 5406265477), the correct answer was option No. 1 i.e. 3 gears. However, the Master Answer Key was subsequently revised and the correct answer in respect of the said question was option No. 4 i.e. 2 gears. The petitioner had marked the option No. 1 i.e. 3 gears as the correct answer. The last candidate selected against the post secured 140.25 marks while the petitioner secured 140 marks out of 200. The petitioner provided proof of the correct answer to be option No. 1 i.e. 3 gears, but to no avail. If marks are considered against the aforesaid question, the petitioner shall stand selected. It was also contended that candidates obtaining lesser marks were selected.
The writ petition was resisted by the respondents on the ground that after the publication of Master Answer Key objections were invited as per the Advertisement and thereafter the opinion of the subject experts were obtained in which the option of 2 gears was found to be the correct answer to the question No. 120. The revised answer key was not required to be published as there was no such provision. The answer to the questions found to be correct by the subject expert could not be reviewed by the Court. It was also stated that the rule of normalization was very much part of the brochure that accompanied the Advertisement and the Court had already repelled similar submissions while deciding Writ-A No. 3427 of 2022. Accordingly, it was prayed that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
The appellant has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that the appellant had filed material to demonstrate that the answer given by him to the question No. 120 was correct, but the learned Single Judge proceeded to ignore the same and relied upon the opinion of the subject expert to non suit the writ petitioner / appellant. The writ petitioner / appellant had filed his objections before the authorities annexing the material relied upon, but the authorities did not respond.
We have heard Shri Santosh Kumar Singh 'Paliwal', learned counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner and Shri Aditya Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and have perused the record.
We find that the learned Single Judge has dealt with the issues raised by the appellant. The learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that since the subject experts of the field have already given their opinion regarding the answer of question No. 120. The learned Single Judge has further recorded the factum that the Rule of normalization is a well tested rule for the purposes of preparing final merit list, if the examination for selection and appointment was held in different shifts with different set of question papers.
In an Intra-Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. As such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.4.2022.
For reasons stated above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and stands, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.5.2022
Ravi Prakash
(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) (Pritinker Diwaker, J.)
