Devendra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 23692 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:57470
 
Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6419 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Devendra
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- O.P. Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3.

2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had appeared in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination held in the year 2019. Grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted one mark less, as such, the petitioner could not cross the qualifying marks as prescribed. The petitioner relies upon a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Abhishek Srivastava and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.; Special Appeal Defective No.343 of 2021 wherein the petitioners had challenged their grievance with regard to one mark less being awarded to them. The special appeal came to be allowed on 25.8.2021 holding that the answer to Question No.60 was not correctly selected by the Examination Committee and directions were issued to take a decision appropriately to award one mark to the litigants till date.

3. The said benefit was accorded to the petitioners who were litigants prior to the passing of the order dated 25.8.2021. The said judgment has been followed in Special Appeal No.15 of 2022 and Special Appeal No.184 of 2022 by this Court.

4. The petitioner has approached this Court stating that the benefits granted to the petitioners of Special Appeal Defective No.343 of 2021 be extended to the petitioner also.

5. It is clear that the petitioner was a fence sitter and after decision in Special Appeal continued to sit over the issue and never approached this Court for raising the grievance. Similar persons as the petitioner who had approached this Court after 25.8.2021 have been denied the relief, more so, in view of the observations made in the case of Abhishek Srivastava (supra).

6. It is well settled that a fence sitter cannot claim parity. Thus, following the judgments of this Court in Special Appeal No.15 of 2022 dated 21.1.2022 and Special Appeal No.184 of 2022 dated 4.5.2022, the petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 28.8.2023

VNP/-