State Of U.P. Through Secretary (Basic ... vs Pragati Agarwal And 57 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2446 ALL

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. Through Secretary (Basic ... vs Pragati Agarwal And 57 Others on 23 July, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121045
 

 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 255 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- State of U.P. Through Secretary (Basic Education), Government of U.P. and another
 
Opposite Party :- Pragati Agarwal And 57 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi)
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
 

1. Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Sri Ramanand Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for applicants and Sri Anurag Agrahari, Advocate for writ petitioners.

2. The Court proceed to consider the present review application taking note that a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed as an appeal in disguise as well as an error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record, should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. For reference relevant part of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. Sales Tax Officer and another, 2023 INSC 963 is reproduced hereinafter:

"16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: -

(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

(iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.

(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected."

(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."

3. In the present case, this Court vide judgment dated 05.02.2024 has allowed the bunch of writ petitions, in part, and for reference relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter:

"5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

6. In the above factual and legal background, I am of the view that in case some questions were repeated in UPTET-2021 with same options though in different order, therefore, ambiguity, which was considered by Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Rizwan (supra) earlier, was repeated, therefore, benefit given to candidates therein, could be granted to petitioners herein also.

7. In this regard I have carefully perused the judgment in Mohd. Rizwan (supra). Questions no. 16 and 131 of UPTET-2017 are repeared in UPTET-2021 being Questions No. 8 and 141. In this regard relevant paragraphs of Mohd. Rizwan (supra) are reproduced hereinafter:

"40) A report of the subject experts was placed before the earlier Division Bench, wherein vide order dated 11.04.2018, this Court has examined the report in regard to 16 questions referred to the subject experts. Out of 16 questions, 3 questions were having wrong answers, as per key answers indicated by the regulatory authority and on the assurance of learned Advocate General, grace marks of question Nos.16, 18 and 131 were given on the agreement with the learned counsel for the parties."

"42) We also perused the report submitted by the subject experts on 11.04.2018, which reveals that three questions were found to be doubtful having different answers, therefore, we are with the agreement of the report submitted by the subject experts being based on concensus of the learned advocates appearing for the parties." (Emphasis supplied)

8. The aforesaid reasoning, conclusion and relief is also equally applicable in present cases. Except that there is no concession on behalf of State, still this Court is of the considered view that since earlier ambiguity has been repeated in UPTET-2021 also, therefore, relief, as granted in Mohd. Rizwan (supra) may be granted to petitioners herein also. Therefore, grace marks for Questions No. 8 and 141 is granted to petitioners. No distinction can be made out, whether objection to answer key was filed or not, as petitioners are now before this Court.

9. So far as other questions are concerned, i.e., Questions No. 25 and 35, during argument the objection with regard to Question No. 35 was not pressed. So far as Question No. 25 is concerned, the material annexed alongwith writ petitions would not be sufficient to take a contrary view to the revised answer key as well as in view of the observation made by Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) that in only extraordinary circumstances correctness of answer key be doubted, which is not the case in hand, therefore, no relief can be granted qua to Question No. 25.

10. In aforesaid circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed in part and only with regard to Questions No. 8 and 141 grace marks be granted to petitioners and accordingly it is ordered that fresh result be declared qua to all petitioners, after taking note of grace marks."

4. The aforesaid judgment was challenged at the behest of review applicants before a Division Bench of this Court by filing Special Appeal No. 820 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file an appropriate review. For reference the order dated 15.05.2025 passed in Special Appeal is reproduced hereinafter:

"1. This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby a direction is issued to award grace marks in respect of question Nos. 8 and 141. This decision has been arrived at by the learned Single Judge after noticing that same questions were included in a previous recruitment and the answers therein were found wrong, as a result of which grace marks were granted. Learned Single Judge, therefore, has substantially followed the decision taken in respect of the previous adjudication.

2. The State is aggrieved by the judgment on the ground that the mistakes occurred in the answers to the two questions in previous recruitment have already been rectified in the present examination and, therefore, the basis for resorting to the same treatment as was done earlier is not justified on the facts.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioners submit that this aspect of the matter was never highlighted before the learned Single Judge and since the distinction was not established on the facts, therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly followed the course adopted in the previous recruitment.

4. Having considered the respective submissions, we are of the view that the remedy of the State, in the facts and circumstances, would be to seek review of the judgment of learned Single Judge by highlighting essential facts as are stated to arise in respect of the subsequent recruitment regarding the two questions.

5. Consequently, this appeal is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file an appropriate review.

6. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid."

5. Therefore, present review application is filed.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for review-applicants referred following paragraphs of supplementary affidavit dated 23.07.2025 to review the judgment under review:

"3. That the question and options of answer of question no. 16 and 131 (booklet series-C) U.P.T.E.T. Examination 2017 is quoted herein below for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Court.

i. Question No. 16- Who described different types of personality based on glands?

1. Kretschmer

2. Jung

3. Cannon

4. Spranger

ii. Question No. 131 In a food chain of grassland ecosystem, the top consumers are

1. Herbivorous

2. Carnivorous

3. Bacteria

4. Either carnivorous or herbivorous

4. That in U.P.T.E.T. Examination 2021, the mistake committed earlier in 2017 examination in respect of question and its correct answer was rectify/corrected in question no. 8 and 141 (Booklet series B). The question No. 8 and 141 (Booklet Series B) of U.P.T.E.T. 2021 Examination is quoted herein below for kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court:-

i. Question No. 8- Who described different types of personality based on grands from the following?

1. Cannon

2. Jung

3. Kreshmer

4. Sprangar

ii. Question No. 141- In a food chain of grassland ecosystem, the top consumers are

1. Bacteria

2. Carnivorous

3. Herbivorous

4. Either carnivorous and Herbivorous.

5. That in U.P.T.E.T. Examination 2017, the answer of question no. 16 was given Kretschmer (option no. 1) was correct answer according to the Examination Regulatory Authority, which was found doubtful by the division bench of this Court on the basis of the subject experts opinion and therefore, in subsequent U.P.T.E.T. Examination 2021, the same question was repeated as question no. 8 and the answer which was found doubtful in U.P.T.E.T. Examination 2017 was changed and correct answer Cannon (option no. 1) was given.

6. That so far as the second question no. 131 (Booklet Series C) in U.P.T.E.T. Examination 2017 is concerned, the correct answer according to the Examination Regulatory Authority in the year 2017 was given Carnivorous (option no. 2). Carnivorous was given correct answer in U.P.T.Ε.Τ. Examination 2017 but the division bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 93 of 2018 found the answer Carnivorous as doubtful.

7. That the Court found it doubtful on the basis of the report, as in the text book namely "Hamara Paryavaran" edition 2016-17, the top consumers in a food chain of grassland ecosystem was mentioned as Bacteria. Since in the text book of edition 2016-17 top consumer of food chain was mentioned as Bacteria, therefore, the Court found the answer Carnivorous (option no. 2) in the U.P.T.E.T. Examination 2017 as doubtful. Copy of the text book namely "Hamara Paryavaran" Edition 2016-17 has been annexed as annexure no. 3 of the counter affidavit in writ petition filed by the respondent no. 2.

But in the year 2021, U.P.T.E.T. Examination same was repeated as question no. 141 and Carnivorous (option no. 2) was given as a correct answer, as in the edition 2021-22 of the text book namely "Hamara Paryavaran", That mistake was corrected on that part of text book. The top consumers of the food chain are mentioned as Non-vegetarian (Carnivorous). Copy of the text book namely "Hamara Paryavaran" Edition 2021-22 has been annexed as annexure no. 4 of the counter affidavit.

8 That the text book namely "Hamara Paryavaran" is published by the Basic Education Department for free of cost distribution to the students. The text book is published every year for the benefit of the students and the book is written/prepared by the subject experts. It is submitted that in text book edition 2016-17, the Bacteria was mentioned as top consumers by mistake and therefore, in the subsequent edition 2021-22, the mistake was corrected by the subject expert in the text book namely "Hamara Paryavaran" and Carnivorous (Non-vegetarian) was mentioned as top consumers in food chain of grassland ecosystem."

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for writ petitioners submits that aforesaid submissions are placed before this Court for the first time and there is no illegality in granting parity to writ petitioners to the relief granted in earlier round of litigation.

8. On basis of above submissions, it is not under much dispute now that so far as Question No. 8 is concerned, its answer key has answered "Option (1)" as the correct answer, which was also the view of the Coordinate Bench in earlier round of litigation. Therefore, the present case is not similar since defect of earlier examination was cured and hence no relief can be granted so far as Question No. 8 is concerned.

9. With regard to Question No. 141, the Court takes note that it is based on a text book namely, "Hamara Paryavaran" and a reference was made of the Edition 2021-22 which has also corrected the error mentioned in earlier Edition of book and admittedly the examination was conducted after its publication. Therefore, the ground available to grant grace marks in earlier examination does not exist in present case. Accordingly, there was no reason to grant grace marks so far as Question No. 141 also.

10. In aforesaid circumstances, the Court is of the view that in the light of above discussion, present case is a fit case to review the judgment dated 05.02.2024. The review applicants are successful in pointing out "an error apparent on the face of record" in the judgment under review. Therefore, the observations and directions made in last paragraph of judgment under review is recalled and the writ petitions are dismissed in entirety.

11. The review application is accordingly disposed of.

Order Date :- 23.07.2025

AK