The Allahabad High Court has refused to interfere with the petition filed after two years on marks obtained after the re-evaluation of the answer sheet for 2018 assistant teacher recruitment.
A single-judge bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Vandana Gupta.
The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
“i. A writ order or direction in the nature mandamus commanding the Respondent-Authorities to revisit the results after going through copy of the petitioner, and also after deciding the objection, so filed by the petitioner with respect to answers of the question Nos. 44 and 52 to make selection only after making proper scrutiny of results and maintain the same on the basis of merits as per Policy.
ii. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to produce the reevaluated copy of the petitioner before this Court so justice may be done with the petitioner.
ii. A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to issue appointment letter in favor of the Petitioner after being found eligible and qualified in Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2018 and one post may be kept reserve for the Petitioner by providing all other consequential benefits as given to other qualified and selected candidates.”
It is contended that petitioner had appeared in examination for the post of Assistant Teacher in primary school for recruitment examination in 2018.
The petitioner was given booklet series ‘C’ and model booklet answer key for series ‘C’ was published on the website on June 5, 2018 and revised model booklet key was published on June 18, 2018. The result was declared on August 13, 2018 and the petitioner obtained 61 marks. Thereafter, the petitioner had deposited Rs 2,000 and made an application for a scanned copy of the answer sheet of booklet series ‘C’ which was provided by respondents.
The petitioner had already applied for re-evaluation and on February 17, 2019, the revaluation result was declared in which she secured 66 marks.
Also Read: Even after 75 years of Independence, we aren’t able to get out of caste menace: Allahabad High Court
According to the petitioner, the minimum qualifying mark fixed for General and OBC candidates was 67 and petitioner is short by one mark. At this stage, she is challenging the answers given to Question Nos 44 and 52 which according to her is correct.
Opposing the petition, Standing Counsel submitted that controversy in regard to the correctness of numbers granted to candidates who appeared for Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2018 has already been decided by co-ordinate Bench, Mazahirul Islam and 2 others vs. State of U.P and another, decided on July 23, 2021, relying upon the decision of Division Bench in case of Kaushlesh Mishra vs. State of U.P and another, Special Appeal No 42 of 2021, decided on July 8, 2021.
He has also relied upon the decision in case of Special Appeal, wherein the Division Bench relied upon the decision of Apex Court in case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another, (2010) 6 SCC 759 and held that Court cannot take place of an expert to evaluate the correctness of answer.
Archana Singh, counsel appearing for the private respondent (respondent no 3) submitted that the petitioner had already applied for revaluation and on February 17, 2019, the result was declared and the mark given to her was 66 and she is short by one mark for clearing the minimum qualifying mark.
“Having heard counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record, the Court found that once the petitioner had already applied for re-evaluation and did not object to the marks awarded to her on February 17, 2019 the writ petition cannot be entertained after a lapse of more than two years,”
-the Court observed.
The Court said that the examining body had published the model booklet answer key of series ‘C’ on June 05, 2018 and revised model answer key on June 18, 2018 but the petitioner had never filed any objection to the same and had become final. Once the result has been declared, the petitioner cannot now object to the same. Moreover, the controversy stands settled in view of judgment rendered in Kaushlesh Mishra.
“The Court declines to interfere under Article 226 of Constitution of India and the relief prayed for cannot be granted. In view of above, writ petition fails is hereby dismissed,”
-the Court ordered.