# Abhishek Kumar Bajpayee v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1674
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2017-01-04
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 18733 of 2019
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abhishek-kumar-bajpayee-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45557
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service Law - vacancy of Assistant
Teacher in Primary School - selection
process has to brought to a logical end -
finding - time granted by this Court in the
case of Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi Vs.
State of U.P. should be treated to be cut
off date for the purpose of permitting the
candidates to apply for re-evaluation -
Petitioner
did
not
approach
Court
challenging the result of re-evaluation -
pleadings lacks material fact as to the
date
on
which
petitioner
received
scanned copy and the mode by which
scanned copy was sent - no merit.
(Para 17,19)

 Petitioner
applied
for
selection
and
appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher -
illegalities and discrepancies committed in
conducting the evaluation - Government Order
- permitting candidates desirous for reevaluation of their copies - petitioner was three
mark short of minimum qualifying marks after
re-evaluation - petitioner applied for obtaining
the scanned copy of his answer copy - Court
granted two weeks time to apply for reevaluation - candidates dissatisfied with the
marks awarded
after re-evaluation again
approached
Court
-
State
Government
considering the welfare of the candidates again
decide to re-evaluate the copy of all the
petitioners who being dissatisfied with the
result of re-evaluation approached court .
(Para -5,8,14,15)

Held :- The contention of the petitioner that
no cut off date is provided by this Court for
making
application
for
re-evaluation
is
misconceived as the process of re-evaluation
cannot be allowed to be continued to infinity.
(Para-19)
2 All. Abhishek Kumar Bajpayee Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1675
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

1674 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. Insofar as the first requirement
is concerned namely typing test/speed as
prescribed
under
the
aforesaid
Government Orders, specific findings
has already been recorded by the
respondent No.3 in the order impugned
that respondent No.5 is having 26.8
words per minute typing speed in Hindi
which is requisite typing speed as per
Government Orders, i.e., 25 to 30 words
per minute. From the facts as narrated
above, it is clear that respondent No.5 is
having typing speed as prescribed under
the
Government
Orders
dated
23.08.2016 and 04.01.2017. Apart from
the same, the respondent No.5 is also
having a valid "CCC" Certificate duly
issued in his favour by the National
Institute of Electronics and Information
Technology (NIELIT). Apart from the
aforesaid arguments, no other argument
whatsoever has been raised by the
counsel for the petitioners.

12. In view of the aforesaid, this
Court is of the view that the order passed
by the respondent No.3 dated 19.10.2019
is absolutely just and proper and does
not call for any interference by this
Court specially under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

13. The writ petition is devoid of
merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1674

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
Writ A No. 18733 of 2019

Abhishek Kumar Bajpayee ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shivendu Ojha, Sri Shikhar Trivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav

A. Service Law - vacancy of Assistant
Teacher in Primary School - selection
process has to brought to a logical end -
finding - time granted by this Court in the
case of Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi Vs.
State of U.P. should be treated to be cut
off date for the purpose of permitting the
candidates to apply for re-evaluation -
Petitioner
did
not
approach
Court
challenging the result of re-evaluation -
pleadings lacks material fact as to the
date
on
which
petitioner
received
scanned copy and the mode by which
scanned copy was sent - no merit.
(Para 17,19)

 Petitioner
applied
for
selection
and
appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher -
illegalities and discrepancies committed in
conducting the evaluation - Government Order
- permitting candidates desirous for reevaluation of their copies - petitioner was three
mark short of minimum qualifying marks after
re-evaluation - petitioner applied for obtaining
the scanned copy of his answer copy - Court
granted two weeks time to apply for reevaluation - candidates dissatisfied with the
marks awarded
after re-evaluation again
approached
Court
-
State
Government
considering the welfare of the candidates again
decide to re-evaluate the copy of all the
petitioners who being dissatisfied with the
result of re-evaluation approached court .
(Para -5,8,14,15)

Held :- The contention of the petitioner that
no cut off date is provided by this Court for
making
application
for
re-evaluation
is
misconceived as the process of re-evaluation
cannot be allowed to be continued to infinity.
(Para-19)
2 All. Abhishek Kumar Bajpayee Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1675
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of cases cited:-

1. Aniruddh Narayan Shukla and 118 Ors. vs.
State of U.P. , Writ-A No.18235 of 2018

2. Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P.
and other , Writ-A No.6420

3. Ranvijay Singh & Ors. , 2018 (2) SCC 357
4. Priya Sharma Vs. State of U.P. , Special
Appeal No. 620 of 2019

5. Satish Kumar Pandey & Others, Writ-A No.
19760 of 2019

6. Manju vs. State of U.P. & Anr. ,Writ-A
No.17887 of 2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shivendu
Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for
respondent No.3 and learned Standing
Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4.

2. The State of U.P. has decided to
fill up 68500 vacancies of Assistant
Teacher in Primary School run by U.P.
Basic
Shiksha
Parishad,
Allahabad.
Pursuant to the aforesaid decision, State
Government directed the Director, State
Council of Educational Research and
Training JBTC, Campus, Nishatganj, U.P.
Lucknow as well as respondent no.4Secretary
Examination
Regulatory
Authority, U.P. Allahabad to conduct the
Assistant
Teacher
Recruitment
Examination of 2018 (hereinafter referred
to as 'Examination 2018). Pursuant to the
said decision, on-line applications were
invited to fill up 68500 vacancies of
Assistant Teachers by advertisement dated
8.5.2018. The cut off percentage to qualify
in the examination was 45% for General
and
O.B.C
(other
backward
class)
candidates and 40% for Schedule Cast
Candidates.
Thus,
to
qualify
the
examination 2018, candidates belonging to
General/O.B.C category should secure 67
marks
and
candidates
belonging
to
scheduled cast category should secure 60
marks.

3. The petitioner being eligible
applied for selection and appointment on
the post of Assistant Teacher. The
examination
consisted
of
written
examination of 150 questions . The
petitioner appeared in the examination and
attempted 142 questions out of 150
questions. Respondent no.4 published
answer key on 5.6.2018 and objections
against the proposed answer key was
entertained till 9.6.2018. The Expert
Committee was to consider the objections
against the answer key and submit its
recommendation
by
15.6.2018.
The
modified/corrected model answer key was
to be published on 18.6.2018. The result
was declared on 13.6.2018 and model
answer key was also published. The
petitioner secured 59 marks in the
examination.

4. It appears that non selected
candidates approached this Court by filing
Writ-A No.18235 of 2018 (Aniruddh
Narayan Shukla and 118 Ors. vs. State of
U.P.) which was decided by this court by
judgment dated.30.10.2018. The relevant
extract of the judgment is extracted
hereinbelow:-

"It appears that some of the
petitioners have not availed of the liberty
granted under the Government Order
dated 05.10.2018
to apply
for
reevaluation, for the simple reason that the
writ petitions were pending before this
1676 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court. It is stated that some of the
petitioners were advised not to do so.
Since the task of re-evaluation has,
otherwise, been made available by the
respondents themselves, it would be
appropriate
to
grant
one
further
indulgence to all such petitioners to make
their objections or to apply for reevaluation, within a period of two weeks
from today, along with certified and/or
true copy of this order. It is made clear
that except to grant this opportunity, no
further opportunity would be extended to
any of the persons to raise a fresh
grievance. Exercise of re-evaluation would
be carried out by the Examination
Regulatory Authority on the basis of
observations,
made
above,
and
in
accordance with law. Aforesaid guidelines
are necessary in order to ensure that the
candidates
are
treated
fairly
and
unnecessary further litigation, in respect
of the recruitment itself, could be avoided
on the questions already formulated."

5. It also transpires that many a
candidate submitted complaints to the
State Government for the illegalities and
discrepancies committed in conducting the
evaluation. The State Government during
the pendency of Writ-A No.18235 of 2018
issued
a
Government
Order
dated
5.10.2018 permitting all those candidates,
who are desirous for re-evaluation of their
copies should apply on-line between
11.10.2018 to 20.10.2018.

6. It appears that some of petitioners
in the aforesaid writ petition could not
apply for re-evaluation within the period
stipulated in Government Order dated
5.10.2018, but they were allowed to apply
for re-evaluation by this court in Writ-A
No.18235 of 2018, the relevant extract of
the judgment is already extracted above.

7. The re-evaluation result was
declared. After declaration of result of reevaluation, many a candidate again found
discrepancy in re-evaluation of their copy.
Accordingly, they approached this Court,
challenging the correctness of the reevaluation in Writ-A No.6420 (Narendra
Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P.) and
other connected writ petitions. During the
pendency of the said writ petition, the
State
Government
again
issued
Government
Order
dated
18.10.2019
deciding to re-evaluate the copy of all the
candidates, who have preferred writ
petition before this Court being not
satisfied with the result of re-evaluation. In
the
aforesaid
backdrop,
this
Court
disposed off Writ-A No.6420 of 2019
along with other connected writ petitions.
The relevant portion of the judgment is
extracted hereinbelow:-

"In view of aforesaid decision
taken by the State Government, present
petition is disposed of with direction to
Secretary,
Examination
Regulatory
Authority, U.P. Allahabad to conduct the
re-evaluation of answer book of petitioner
in this petition as well as in all connected
writ petitions within a period of three
months from today strictly in accordance
with guidelines issued by this Court in the
matter of Aniruddh Narayan Shukla
(supra) as well as Radha Devi (supra).

Needless to say that in case some
order is passed by the Apex Court in SLP
in the matter of Radha Devi (supra), same
shall be abide by the "Secretary" while
conducting the re-evaluation.

Petitioners are also directed to
submit copy of this order along with
application in the office of "Secretary"
within a period of one month from today to
avoid any confusion in re-evaluation of
their answer books.
2 All. Abhishek Kumar Bajpayee Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1677

After re-evaluation of answer
sheet
and
declaration
of
result,
"Secretary" is directed to send the result to
concern State authority for issuance of
appointment letter against the remaining
22211 post of Assistant Teacher as per
marks obtained by the petitioner as well as
minimum cut off marks within four weeks
from the date of declaration of result."

8. The petitioner also submitted
application for re-evaluation. On reevaluation, the marks of the petitioner has
increased from 59 to 64. The petitioner
being O.B.C. candidate was to secure 67
marks to qualify the examination. Hence,
the petitioner was three mark short of
minimum qualifying marks after reevaluation. After the declaration of the
result of the re-evaluation, the petitioner
deposited Rs.2,000/- for obtaining the
scanned copy of his answer copy. It is
stated in the writ petition that the
petitioner has received scanned copy in the
Month of November, 2019. The petitioner
found that though his answer to question
no.30, 51, 57, 63, 64 and 133 are correct,
but marks in those questions were not
awarded, and if the petitioner had been
awarded marks against the aforesaid
questions, he would have secured 70
marks and would have qualified the
examination. In the aforesaid backdrop,
the petitioner has come up in the writ
petition praying for the following reliefs:-

"i. A writ order or direction in the
nature
mandamus
commanding
the
respondent to produce original answer key
(answer copy) of Booklet Series 'D' of the
petitioner before this Hon'ble Coue tans same
may be duly compared with the answers given
by the petitioner and at least marks be allotted
to the petitioner against Question Nos.31, 51,
57, 63, 64 and 133.

ii. A writ order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding to the
respondent to calculate mark against Question
Nos. 31, 51, 57, 63, 64 and 133 declare result
of the petitioner of Assistant Teacher
Recruitment Examination-2018.

iii. A writ order or direction in the
nature
of
mandamus
commanding
the
respondents to issue appointment letter in
favour of the petitioner after being found
eligible and qualified in Assistant Teacher
Recruitment Examination-2018 and also
provided all other consequential benefits as
given to other qualified and selected
candidates."

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that this Court in the case of
Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi (supra) has
restricted the filing of the application within
one month to the petitioners before the court.
Thus, the period of one month prescribed by
this court in the case of Narendra Kumar
Chaturvedi (supra) is not applicable to those
candidates who were not before this court in
the bunch of petitions decided with the case of
Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi (supra). Hence,
there is no cut-off date for filing the application
for re-evaluation.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner further contended that since
there is apparent error on the face of
record in not awarding the marks to the
petitioner against question nos.30, 51, 57,
63, 64 and 133, which have been answered
correctly by the petitioner, the petitioner
may be permitted to submit application for
re-evaluation of his answer-sheet in terms
of orders passed by this Court in the case
of Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi (supra)
as non awarding of marks in respect to the
answer of the questions correctly answered
by the petitioner has caused serious
prejudice to the rights of the petitioner.
1678 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel
contended
that
the
State
Government has decided by Government
Order dated 18.10.2019 to re-evaluate the
copy of all the candidates, who have
preferred writ petitions after declaration of
the result of re-evaluation, and in the light
of
the
Government
Order
dated
18.10.2019 , this court disposed off the
writ
petition
of
Narendra
Kumar
Chaturvedi (supra) and other connected
petitions permitting the petitioners to
submit application in the Office of
'Secretary' within a period of one month
from the date of judgment i.e. 22.10.2019
for re-evaluation of their answer books.
Thus, the submission is that if the
petitioner was dissatisfied with the result
of re-evaluation, he ought to have
approached this Court in time to get the
benefit of the judgment of this Court in the
case of Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi
(Supra). He submitted that a very vague
averment with regard to the fact that the
scanned copy has been received by the
petitioner in the month of November, 2019
has been made, whereas, the petitioner has
not stated in the writ petition as to the date
on which and the mode by which he has
received the scanned copy.

12. He further submits that this Court
cannot permit the candidate to apply for reevaluation for indefinite period inasmuch as if
this process continues indefinitely, the process
of selection cannot be brought to a logical end.
Thus, the submission is that the cut-off date for
making application for re-evaluation was
21.10.2019 i.e. one month period from the date
of judgment in the case of Narendra Kumar
Chaturvedi (supra), and since the petitioner
has not approached within the said period, the
relief prayed by the petitioner cannot be
granted. He further submits that even
otherwise the relief sought for by the petitioner
cannot be granted by this Court in exercise of
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India in view of various pronouncements of
Hon'ble Apex Court where the Apex Court
held that if there is no provision for reevaluation, the Court should not permit reevaluation as a matter of right

13. I have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the
State.

14. This Court while deciding the case of
Aniruddh Narayan Shukla (supra) has
granted two weeks time to the petitioners in
those petition to apply for re-evaluation. The
Court further observed that no further liberty
would be extended to any candidate to raise
such grievance. The Government Order dated
15.10.2018 also granted liberty to all the
candidates not satisfied with the marks to
apply for re-evaluation. The Board in the light
of Government Order dated 15.10.2018 and
the case of Aniruddh Narayan Shukla (supra)
re-evaluated the copies of all the candidates
who had availed the opportunity of reevaluation.

15. As some of the candidates were
dissatisfied with the marks awarded after
re-evaluation, they again approached this
Court in Writ-A No.6420 of 2019 and
other connected writ petitions. The State
Government considering the welfare of the
candidates again decide to re-evaluate the
copy of all the petitioners who being
dissatisfied with the result of re-evaluation
approached this court.

16.
At
this
stage,
it would
appropriate to refer paragraph 31 and 32 of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Ranvijay Singh & Ors. 2018
Volume 2 SCC 357, wherein the Apex
Court has expressed anguish where the
2 All. Abhishek Kumar Bajpayee Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1679
selection of Assistant Teachers could not
be brought to a logical end for about eight
years. Relevant part of the judgment is
quoted hereinbelow:-

"31. On our part we may add that
sympathy or compassion does not play any
role in the matter of directing or not directing
re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is
committed by the examination authority, the
complete body of candidates suffers. The entire
examination process does not deserve to be
derailed only because some candidates are
disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some
injustice having been caused to them by an
erroneous question or an erroneous answer.
All candidates suffer equally, though some
might suffer more but that cannot be helped
since mathematical precision is not always
possible. This Court has shown one way out of
an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending
question.

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."

17. As per the law laid down by the
Apex court, the selection process has to
brought to a logical end, therefore, in the
facts of the present case, this Court finds
that the time granted by this Court in the
case of Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi
(supra) should be treated to be cut off date
for
the
purpose
of
permitting
the
candidates to apply for re-evaluation.

18. It is also pertinent to mention that
if the candidate is allowed to submit
application for re-evaluation for indefinite
period, then the selection process would
never complete and the very purpose of
selection is frustrated which is against the
various pronouncements of Apex Court,
wherein, the Apex, Court has expressed
anguish for non completion of the
selection process in time.

19. In the case in hand, the petitioner
did not approach this Court challenging
the result of re-evaluation. The petitioner
in order to avail the benefit of judgment of
this court in the case of Narendra Kumar
Chaturvedi (supra) in paragraph 20 of the
writ petition has made a vague averment
1680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that he has received scanned copy in the
month of November, 2019. The pleadings
in this regard lacks material fact as to the
date on which he has received scanned
copy and the mode by which scanned copy
was sent to him. Thus, the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner that
no cut off date is provided by this Court
for making application for re-evaluation is
misconceived as the process of reevaluation cannot be allowed to be
continued to infinity.

20. While the judgment was
reserved, the counsel for the petition has
placed two judgments; one in Special
Appeal No. 620 of 2019 (Priya Sharma
Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 18.12.2019,
and the other judgment in Writ-A No.
19760 of 2019 (Satish Kumar Pandey &
Others) decided on 07.01.2019 to contend
that the petitioner is also entitled to the
benefit of the aforesaid judgment.

21. The judgment Special Appeal
No. 620 of 2019 has been rendered in
different factual context wherein the writ
petition filed by the appellant in special
appeal was dismissed before the judgment
of this Court in Aniruddh Narayan
Shukla (supra) case. In the said backdrop,
this Court has extended the benefit of the
judgment
of
this
Court
in
Writ-A
No.14509 of 2019, thus, the judgment of
this Court in Special Appeal No.620 of
2019 is of no help to the petitioner.

22. So far as the other judgment
relied upon by counsel for the petitioner in
Writ-A No. 19760 of 2019 is concerned,
the same has been passed on the basis of
judgment of this Court in Special Appeal
No.620 of 2019, but this aspect that
judgment of Special Appeal No. 620 of
2019 has been rendered in different factual
context has not been placed before the
court. Further, the said judgment has also
not considered the judgment of this Court
in Writ-A No.17887 of 2019 (Manju vs.
State of U.P. & Anr.) decided on
05.12.2019,
wherein
this
Court
has
dismissed the writ petition filed by one
such candidate, who has approached this
Court after the time of one month granted
by this Court in Aniruddh Narayan
Shukla (supra) case has expired. Thus, the
judgment of this Court in Writ-A No.
19760 of 2019 does not come to aid of the
petitioner.

23. Thus, in view of the said fact, the
writ
petition
lacks
merit
and
is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1680

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

Writ A No. 19257 of 2019

Din Bandhu Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Col. Ram Achal Pandey (Retd.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.

A. Service Law - Disability pension -
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Armed Forces Tribunal Act ,2007 - Army
Rules, 1954 - Rule 13(3)(IV) - Undue
delay and laches are relevant factors in
exercising equitable jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India -