# Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors. 518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 517
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-01-18
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari, Shashi Kant
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/constable-979-civil-police-omveer-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-518-indian-law-43480
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

C.S.C.

All these three Special Appeals 1495 of 2011,839 of 2012 and 1220 of 2012 relating to promotional
recruitment on the post of Sub- Inspectors, involve common issues to be decided. Therefore on the
request of the learned counsel for the parties all the appeals are being heard together and are being
Decided by this common judgment.

In the year 2011, a circular letter was issued by U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board,
Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') notifying selection Under 50% quota for filling up
posts of Sub Inspector by Promotion amongst Constables and Head Constables.Being eligible, the
petitioners-appellants applied and Appeared in the written examination held for above selection.On
20.5.2011, result of the aforesaid written Examination was published, in which, petitionerssappellants, Were declared as fail in Paper No.1 pertaining to Hindi Essay.Accordingly, all the
petitioner-appellants who obtained 50% or more marks in the Hindi Essay Paper in the first Evaluation
of answer-sheet shall be treated as Successful in Hindi Essay Paper. The respondents will as a
consequqnce
declare
result
of
all
above
Petitioners-
appellants
and
petitioner-
non
Appellant/intervenor Suresh Chandra, within two months From the date of the production of a certified
copy of this Order. Special Appeal No.1220 of 2012 filed by the State- appellant is dismissed with
costs.

Held: Para-

Case Law discussed :
Constable Civil Police Om Veer Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. And others ,

Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others, reported
in2004 SCC 883, Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State Of U.P. and others ,

## Text

3 All. Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh & Ors. Vs State OF U.P. & Ors.
517
unprincipled and unreasonable eligibility criterion for the purpose of grant of revised pension.
Criterion of date of enforcement of the revised scheme entitling benefits of the revision to those
retiring after that date while depriving the benefits to those retiring prior to that date, held, violative
of Article 14.

From the above proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court it is clear
that the benefit of the Government Order dated 19.4.2006 cannot be denied to the employees who
retired prior to 19.4.2006 and such benefits are also available to them, including the petitioner. The
notification is always read prospectively unless it is made retrospective. The Government Order
dated 19.4.2006 has been further clarified by the Government Order dated 23.11.2007 which said
that the benefit is available w.e.f. 19.4.2006. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled for the
Government Order dated 19.4.2006 w.e.f. 19.4.2006 and not prior to that.

In the result, writ petition is allowed in part. The respondent is directed to allow the benefit
of the Government Order dated 19.4.2006 to the petitioner w.e.f. 19.4.2006 if till date nothing has
been paid to the petitioner, the entire dues may be paid forthwith preferably within a period of two
months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order along with simple interest at
the rate of 5%."

10. On perusal of impugned judgment and order passed by the Writ Court, we find that same is
a well discussed judgment incorporating detailed discussion of facts and law, therefore, we are of the
considered opinion that petitioner-respondent is entitled for the benefit of gratuity as provided by the
Government Order dated 19.4.2006, which was further clarified by Government Order dated
23.11.2007. We find no infirmity legal or otherwise in the impugned judgment and order and the
same is hereby upheld. The respondents-appellants are directed to comply with the directions given
by the Writ Court within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this
order.

11. Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

12. No order to as costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.01.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT, J.

Special Appeal No. - 1495 of 2011

Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Appellants:
Prateek Tyagi, A.K. Mishra, Ashok Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

All these three Special Appeals 1495 of 2011,839 of 2012 and 1220 of 2012 relating to promotional
recruitment on the post of Sub- Inspectors, involve common issues to be decided. Therefore on the
request of the learned counsel for the parties all the appeals are being heard together and are being
Decided by this common judgment.

In the year 2011, a circular letter was issued by U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board,
Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') notifying selection Under 50% quota for filling up
posts of Sub Inspector by Promotion amongst Constables and Head Constables.Being eligible, the
petitioners-appellants applied and Appeared in the written examination held for above selection.On
20.5.2011, result of the aforesaid written Examination was published, in which, petitionerssappellants, Were declared as fail in Paper No.1 pertaining to Hindi Essay.Accordingly, all the
petitioner-appellants who obtained 50% or more marks in the Hindi Essay Paper in the first Evaluation
of answer-sheet shall be treated as Successful in Hindi Essay Paper. The respondents will as a
consequqnce
declare
result
of
all
above
Petitioners-
appellants
and
petitioner-
non
Appellant/intervenor Suresh Chandra, within two months From the date of the production of a certified
copy of this Order. Special Appeal No.1220 of 2012 filed by the State- appellant is dismissed with
costs.

Held: Para-

Case Law discussed :
Constable Civil Police Om Veer Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. And others ,

Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others, reported
in2004 SCC 883, Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State Of U.P. and others ,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shashi Kant, J)

1. All these three Special Appeals relating to promotional recruitment on the post of
Sub- Inspectors, involve common issues to be decided. Therefore on the request of the
learned counsel for the parties all the appeals are being heard together and are being decided
by this common judgment.

2. Brief facts related to these appeals are that:-

2.1 Petitioners-appellants Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh, Constable
1082 Civil Police, Satendra Kumar, Constable 1048 Civil Police, Sanjeev Kumar, Constable
343, Civil Police, Omveer Singh Nagar, Constable 204 Civil Police Dayachand and Head
Constable 106 Civil Police Mahesh Kumar of Special Appeal No.1495 of 2011 were
working as constables/ Head constable in Civil Police, Uttar Pradesh.

2.2 The petitioner-appellant in Special Appeal No.829 of 2012 Rajveer Singh
Yadav was appointed as Constable in Civil Police on 01.09.1988. In the year 2004, he was
granted promotion as Head Constable.
3 All. Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh & Ors. Vs State OF U.P. & Ors.
519

2.3 In the year 2011, a circular letter was issued by U.P. Police Recruitment and
Promotion Board, Lucknow ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') notifying selection
under 50% quota for filling up posts of Sub Inspector by promotion amongst Constables and
Head Constables.

2.4 Being eligible, the petitioners-appellants applied and appeared in the written
examination held for above selection.

2.5 On 20.5.2011, result of the aforesaid written examination was published, in
which, petitioners-sappellants, were declared as fail in Paper No.1 pertaining to Hindi Essay.

2.6 Aggrieved whereof, Petitioner- appellants Omveer Singh and others filed Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No.41319 of 2011, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated
26.7.2011 subject to challenge in Special Appeal No.1495 of 2011.

2.7 Petitioner-appellant Rajveer Singh Yadav filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.38563 of 2011 (Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was allowed
vide judgment impugned dated 17.2.2012, with direction to evaluate the answer sheet of the
petitioner-appellant afresh.

2.8 Special Appeal No.839 of 2012 has been filed by petitioner-appellant, Rajveer
Singh Yadav against the judgment and order dated 17.02.2012 passed by the learned Single
Judge in Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011 (Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.
and others).

2.9 Another Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38676 of 2011, Suresh Chandra Vs.
State of U.P. and others, which was also allowed vide judgment and order dated 17.2.2012
along with aforesaid Civil Misc Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011 with direction referred
above.

2.10 Petitioner Suresh Chandra has not challenged the judgment impugned by
filing of appeal, rather he has filed intervening application which will be dealt hereinafter at
appropriate place.

2.11. Respondents-appellants State of U.P. and others have also filed Special
Appeal No.1220 of 2012 against the order impugned dated 17.02.2012 passed in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011, Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants in Special Appeal No.1495 of 2011
(Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others has
contended that the procedure adopted for checking of answer copies and declaration of
result is contrary to the Recruitment Rules and totally unjustified inasmuch as :-
520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3.1 The facts brought on record clearly demonstrate that an innovative method of
evaluation of answer sheets pertaining to Hindi Essay paper has been adopted by the
respondents by subjecting the answer-sheets to evaluation on two occasions i.e. by two
examiners one by one.

3.2. A large number of candidates who have passed on the basis of the marks
awarded in the first evaluation, have been shown failed in the aforesaid paper after taking
the average marks of the same after second evaluation for which there is no justification at
all.

3.3 It were never informed to the candidates appearing in the written examination
that their answer sheets would be subjected to evaluation twice and thereafter, the result
would be declared on the basis of average of the marks obtained by them in the two
evaluations.

3.4 Even otherwise, the petitioners-appellants have performed extremely well and
there exist no occasion for the petitioners/ appellants to be declared as having failed in Hindi
Essay paper.

3.5 As against 5389 vacancies of Sub Inspectors, which were required to be filledup only 3891 candidates have been shown as having qualified in the written examination
and there was no qualified candidte available for remaining 1498 posts.

3.6 In the facts and circumstances, in respect of marks obtained by petitionerappellants on the answer copies in the first evaluation, the second evaluation and on the
basis of their average marks obtained by them ought to have been summoned by the Court
including the records but learned Single Judge did not apply his judicial mind and wrongly
declined to do so by passing the impugned judgment and order.

3.7 In any view of the matter, there is no justificatin for dismissal of some writ
petitions on identical issues while entertaining and allowing some other writ petitions
involving the same controversy.

4. On behalf of petitioner-appellant, Rajveer Singh Yadav in Special Appeal No.839 of
2012, he contended that :-

4.1 It transpires from the perusal of answer-sheet of the petitioner-appellant that it
has been subjected to evaluation on two separate occasions and average marks computed on
the basis of the marks awarded in the said two evaluations has been awarded to the
petitioner-appellant as marks secured by him and accordingly he was declared fail in the
said paper.

4.2 After first evaluation, the petitioner-appellant was awarded 53 marks on the
basis of which the petitioner-appellant was entitled to have been declared as having passed
in the said paper.
3 All. Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh & Ors. Vs State OF U.P. & Ors.
521

4.3 The entire selection is goverened by Statutory Rules which contain no
provision for a second evaluation nor they contain the provision for average of the marks
secured in two evaluations to be worked out and to be treated as the marks ultimately
awarded to a candidate. The action of the respondents in subjecting the answer sheet of
Hindi Essay Paper of petitioner-appellant to a second evaluation was wholly unjustified.

4.4. The action of the respondents to have treated the petitioner-appellant as
having failed on the basis of average marks awarded to him as result of two evaluations, was
wholly unjustified.

4.5. In fact, the petitioner-appellant is a duly qualified candidate, entitled to be
declared successful for promotion as Sub- Inspector.

4.6. On the basis of established facts of case the writ petition was expected to be
allowed in toto with directions for promotion of the petitioner-appellant as Sub Inspector,
but by not doing so a great legal error has been caused by the learned Single Judge.

5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted
that :-

5.1 The judgment impugned passed in Writ 'A' No.41319 of 2011 ( Constable
Civil Police Om Veer Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. And others ) is perfectly justified
as the same has been passed relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and
others, reported in 2004 SCC 883.

5.2 As far as the judgment impugned passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38563
of 2011, Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others is concerned, it is wrong and
illegal because the said writ petition was filed challenging the result of the written
examination declared by the respondent authority pertaining to Hindi Essay paper held on
13.3.2012 with regard to the petitioner-appellant.

5.3 Contrary to the above referred case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra) and
in the facts and circumstances of the case and material available before the Court, there was
no occasion for the learned Single Judge to allow the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38563 of
2011 along with another Writ Petition No.38576 of 2011, Suresh Chandra Vs. State of U.P.
and others with direction to fresh evaluation of the answer sheets of abovepetitionersappellants.

5.4 As such the impugned judgment allowing the writ petitions, is wrong and
illegal and is liable to be quashed on the basis of grounds of challenge in Special Appeal
No.1220 of 2012.
522 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. To appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties properly, it will
be proper to take into consideration, the relevant portion of the judgment impugned passed
in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011, Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and
others, which reads as under:

"When the matter has been taken up answer sheets of both the petitioners have
been produced before this Court and Controller of Examination based at U.P. Police
Recruitment & Promotion Board, is also present in person to explain as to under what
circumstances such a contingency has occurred. Both the answer sheet in question clearly
reflects that they have not at all been examined by the examiner concerned as no marks etc
reflecting evaluation exercise having been undertaken is reflected however on the cover
page of the said answer sheet computerized document is there wherein details have been
given of first evaluation and then details has been given of second evaluation alongwith
signature of examiner and most surprisingly as far as petitioner of Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 38576 of 2011, Suresh Chandra in first evaluation he has been shown to have received
53 marks and in second evaluation he has been shown to have received 45 marks, similarly,
Rajveer Singh Yadav, petitioner of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38563 of 2011, in first
evaluation he has been shown to have received 53 marks and in second evaluation, he has
been shown to have received 46 marks.

Answer sheet of both the petitioners so produced before this Court is pertaining to
Hindi Essay and most surprising feature of both the answer sheets are that though marks
have been awarded in lieu of purported evaluation showing marks being awarded to
petitioners in first evaluation being 53 marks and in second evaluation same has been
reduced to 45 marks and 46 marks respectively. Answer sheet in question has not at all been
checked as not even a single mark is there which would reflect that at any point of time same
have been objectively checked by the examiner concerned and examiner has proceeded to
award marks looking into the performance as put in by the petitioners.

Confronted with this situation Examination Controller, who is present in person
contended that specific instructions have been issued to the examiner not to make any mark
on the answer sheet while checking the answer sheets and examiner was only required to fill
up front page and in view of this it has been stated that transparency has been maintained in
evaluation.

Evaluation process which has been so adopted is not at all been approved of as
answer sheets in question bears no mark whatsoever which would reflect that mind has been
applied by the examiner while evaluating the said answer sheet as each and every answer
sheet has been left blank without any sign of any evaluation exercise having been carried
out except that on the cover page of answer sheet marks has been awarded and that too on
two occasions. Evaluation is an act or process to ascertain the quality of performance put in
by the candidate who has undertaken the examination. Such type of evaluation of examining
body cannot be approved of as under the Right to Information Act, 2005 any incumbent can
get answer sheet in question to satisfy himself/herself as to whether it has been properly
evaluated or not.
3 All. Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh & Ors. Vs State OF U.P. & Ors.
523

Here in the present case answer sheets have been left blank and it has not at all
been shown and demonstrated before this Court as to in what way and manner said answer
sheets in question have been evaluated and on cover page on first evaluation 53 marks have
been awarded to both the petitioners and on second evaluation same have been reduced to
46 and 45 marks respectively. Except for awarding marks, no other record of evaluation has
been maintained. The examiner has purportedly evaluated the answer sheet on first
occasion and on second occasion marks have been reduced. Once answer sheet would have
been examined, then this Court could also examine the action of examiner in reducing the
marks and specially when in the Rules there is no provision for re-evaluation. Evaluation
exercise in effect are reasons given by examiner for awarding such marks. Exercise
undertaken is not at all subscribed by rules. In the facts of the case as purported evaluation
of answer sheet is not at all being approved of and it does not indicate any application of
mind vis-a-vis marks given, in view of this Examination Controller based at U.P. Police
Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow is directed to get aforesaid answer sheets
evaluated and thereafter on the basis of marks obtained by both the petitioner result be
declared within next two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of the order
passed by this Court. Answer sheets in question which have been produced before this Court
are being returned back in sealed cover to the learned Standing counsel to be given to
Examination Controller based at U.P. Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, for
evaluating the same as per direction given by this Court.

With the above direction and observation both the writ petition are allowed."

7. The relevant portion of judgment impugned passed in Writ 'A' No.41319 of 2011,
Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, which
reads as under:

"The submission of the petitioners is based on the presumption and has no
foundation.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Pramod
Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others,
reported in 2004 SCC 883 has held that in the absence of any provision thereof in the
relevant Rules of Public Service Commission which conducted the examination held,
examinees have no right to claim or demand revaluation.

I have perused the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to show any provision under the
Rules of the Public Service Commission, who conducted the examination.

In the absence of Rules and in view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, no
interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed."
524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. The fact of evaluation of answer sheet of Hindi Essay Paper two times is also
admitted by the respondents, as is evident from Para No.15 of the counter affidavit filed by
Shri Habibul Hasan, Deputy S.P., U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow
in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011, Rajveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. And others
which reads as under:-

"15. बोर्ड द्वारा हहन्दी हनबन्ध की उत्तर पुहततका की प्रहिया हनष्पक्ष, पारदशड रखने एवं इसका वततुपरक मूलयांकन सुहनहित
करने हेतु परीक्षाहथडयों की हनबन्ध की उत्तर पुहततकाओं का दो परीक्षकों से पृथक-पृथक मूलयांकन कराया गया तथा दोनों परीक्षकों द्वारा हकए गए
मूलयांकन के औसत के आधार पर परीक्षाहथडयों को अंक प्रदान हकए गए। हहन्दी हनबन्ध की उत्तर पुहततका के मूलयांकन के हलए हनम्नहलहखत
व्यवतथा की गयी

क-हहन्दी हनबन्ध की उत्तर पुहततका के आवरण पत्र के तीन भाग हकए ग, हिन्हें अलग हकया िा सकता है।

ख-हहन्दी हनबन्ध की उत्तर पुहततका के आवरण पत्र के प्रथम भाग में अन्यथी का अनुिमांक, उसका नाम, उत्तर पुहततका संख्या,
परीक्षा कोर्, केन्र कोर्, परीक्षाथी के हतताक्षर, कक्ष हनरीक्षक के हतताक्षर व परीक्षाथी के हलए अनुदेश अंहकत थे। उत्तर पुहततका के प्राप्त होने
पर इसके प्रथम भाग को तकैन करके उस पर कम््यूटर द्वारा कोर् नम्बर अंहकत हकया गया, इसके पिात् इस भाग को उत्तर पुहततका से अलग कर
हलया गया।

ग- हहन्दी हनबन्ध पुहततका के प्रथम मूलयांकन हेतु इसके आवरण पत्र पर प्रथम मूलयाक के भाग पर पूवड में हदए गए कोर् से हभन्न
कोर् नम्बर कम््यूटर द्वारा अंहकत हकया गया और इसे प्रथम परीक्षक को मूलयांकन हेतु भेि हदया गया।
प्रथम मूलयांक के पिात् इस भाग को तकैन करके उत्तर पुहततका से अलग कर हलया गया।

घ- तत्पिात उत्तर पुहततका के पुनमूडलयांकन सम्बन्धी भाग को तकैन करके इस पर एक हभन्न कोर् नम्बर द्वारा अंहकत हकया गया
और उत्तर पुहततका को पुनमूडलयांकन हेतु हद्वतीय परीक्षक को भेिा गया। हद्वतीय परीक्षक के द्वारा हकए गए पुनमूडलयांकन सम्बन्धी भाग को तकैन
हकया गया।

र्- वहह्य एिेन्सी द्वारा क््यूटर में उत्तर पुहततका के तीनों भागों की तकॅण्र् इमेि के आधार पर अभ्याथी के प्रथम एवं हद्वतीय
मूलयांकन में प्राप्त अंको का औसत हनकालकर उसके द्वारा प्राप्त अंको का हववरण तैयार हकया गया।

रैंकर उप हनरीक्षक नागररक पुहलस के पद पर पदोन्नहत हेतु चयन की प्रहकया के हलहखत परीक्षा, शारीररक दक्षता परीक्षा, सेवा
अहभलेख एवं समूह पररसंवाद के चार चरणों में से केवल एक चरण पूणड हुआ है। अत हलहखत परीक्षा के आधार पर अहड पाए गए अभ्यहथडयों के
प्राप्त अंको का हववरण इस ततर पर प्रदहशडत नहीं हकया गया है।"

9. In para no.16 of aforsaid counter affidavit, number of vacancies available has been
clarified which reads as follows:-

"16- यह हक याहचका के प्रततर 36 में याची द्वारा यह कथन हकया गया है हक 5389 ररहियों के हवरुद्ध केवल 3891
अभ्यथी सफल हकए िाने और 1498 ररहिया उपलब्ध होने के दृहिगत ररहियों की कोई कमी नहीं है। यह अहभलेखों पर आधाररत होने के
कारण हकसी उत्तर की आवश्यकता नही है।"

10. In the judgment and order dated 17.02.2012 impugned in Special Appeal No.839 of
2012, the learned Single Judge has observed and recorded finding to the effect that
Petitioner-Appellant Rajveer Singh and petitioner non-appellant/intervenor Suresh Chandra
3 All. Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh & Ors. Vs State OF U.P. & Ors.
525
have secured 53 marks in first evaluation while in the second evaluation Rajveer Singh
Yadav has got 46 marks and Suresh Chandra have got 45 marks.

11. Relevant part of judgment and order impugned reads as under:

"... Answer sheet in question has not at all been checked as not even a single mark
is there which would reflect that at any point of time same have been objectively checked by
the examiner concerned and examiner has proceeded to award marks looking into the
performance as put in by the petitioners.

Confronted with this Examination Controller who is present in person contended
that specific instructions have been issued to the examiner and examiner was only required
to fill up front page and in view of this it has been stated that transparency has been
maintained in evaluation.

Evaluation process which has been so adopted is not at all been approved of as
answer sheets in question bears no mark whatsoever which would reflect that mind has been
applied by the examiner while evaluating the said answer sheets as each and every answer
sheet has been left blank without any sign of any evaluation exercise having been carried
out except that on the cover page of answer sheet marks has been awarded and that too on
two occasions. Evaluation is an act or process to ascertain the quality of performance put in
by the candidate who has undertaken the examination. Such type of evaluation of examining
body cannot be approved of as under the Right to Information Act, 2005 any incumbent can
get answer sheet in question to satisfy himself/herself as to whether it has been properly
evaluation or not.

Here in the present case answer sheets have been left blank and and it has not at
all been shown and demonstrated before this Court as to in what way and manner said
answer sheets in question have been evaluated and on cover paper on first evaluation 53
marks have been awarded to both the petitioners and on second evaluaton same have been
reduced to 46 and 45 marks respectively. Except for awarding marks, no other record of
evaluation has been maintained. The examiner has purportedly evaluated the answer sheet
on first occasion and on second occasion marks have been reduced. Once answer sheet
would have been examined, then this Court could also examine the action of examiner in
reducing the marks and specially when in the Rules there is no provision for re-evaluation.
Evaluation exercise in effect are reasons given by examiner for awarding such marks.
Exercise undertaken is not at all subscribed by rules."

12. In the facts of the case as purported evaluation of answer sheet is not at all being
approved of and it does not indicate any application of mind vis-a-vis marks given and on
the basis of above, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition Nos. 38563 of 2011
and 38676 of 2011 with direction to afresh evaluation of the answer-sheets of petitionerappellant Rajveer Singh Yadav and petitioner- non appellant Suresh Chandra.
526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. Though learned standing counsel has tried his best to counter the observation and
findings recorded by learned Single Judge as referred in detail in predecesing paragraph,
despite repeated querries by the Court about second evaluation of answer sheets, learned
Standing Counsel could not show for specific provision which was authorising the Board for
second evaluation of answer sheet and award marks to appellants on the basis of average
marks of two evaluated these answer sheets of Hindi Essay Paper except to submissions
made on the basis of above referred paragraph No.15 of the counter affidavit filed in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011 by Shri Habibul Hasan, Deputy S.P., U.P. Police
Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow.

14. In these circumstances, we find no occassion to take a different view as observed in
the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge except of modification in direction
regarding reevaluation of answer sheets afresh.

15. It is clear from the averments of paragraph nos. 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit of
Shri Habibul Hasan, Deputy S.P., that answer-sheets of Hindi Essay Paper of the candidates
have been subjected to evaluation twice and the candidates were finally awarded marks in
Hindi paper on the basis of average of the marks of the two evaluations. The writ court has
allowed the Writ Petition Nos.38563 of 2011, Rajveer Singh Yadav and Writ Petition
No.38576 of 2011, Suresh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. with direction to evaluate of answer
sheets of Hindi Essay Paper of above petitioners afresh.

16. In view of observations and finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in respect
of various discrepancies in evaluation of the answer sheet of Hindi Essay Paper and
impermissibility of evaluation process of answer-sheet by the Board, and due to nonsatisfactory answer for second the evaluation of answer-sheets and any specific provision or
authority for permission of second evaluation of answer sheets. We are of considered view
that manner of the second evaluation of answer sheets of Hindi Essay Paper adopted by the
respondents is arbitrary, violatiave of concerned recrruitment rules, unauthorised and illegal.

17. For all the reasons stated above, we are in complete agreement with the findings
recorded by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned passed in Writ Petition
No.38563 of 2011 challenged in Special Appeal No.839 of 2012, Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs.
State of U.P. and others as far those are concerned with the irregularities committed by the
respondent in Hindi evaluation of answer-sheets of Hindi Essay Paper and especially second
evaluation of those but we find no justification to allow the writ petition with direction to
afresh evaluation of answer sheet of petitioner-appellant of above writ petition, we observe
that direction for afresh evaluation of the answer sheet of petitioners-appellants of above
writ petitions de-horse any rules, provision, norms or guidlines defeat the purpose of
examination. Rather it would create a bad precedent and give rise to a new controvercy and
confusion.

18. There is admittedly no dispute before us that examinationers, who have evaluated
the answer sheets of Hindi Essay Paper in first evaluation were fully competent and
independent they have performed their task without fear or favour to any one. Therefore, no
3 All. Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh & Ors. Vs State OF U.P. & Ors.
527
second evaluation of answer sheets was required. In the facts and circumstances, we are of
the view that direction contained in judgment impugned passed in Writ Petition No.38563 of
2011, Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. And others and Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.38576 of 2011, Suresh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others requires modification to the
extent that the candidates, who have obtained passing marks in first evaluation only be
declared successful on the basis of the first evaluation of the answer sheets itself.

19. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that Special Appeal
No.839 of 2012, Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others deserves to be allowed.

20. Since the appeal filed by the petitioner/appellant Rajveer Singh Yadav is to be
allowed, there is no occasion for us to dismis the Special Appeal No.1495 of 2011 filed by
petitioner-appellants Omveer Singh and others only on the ground that Writ Court has
declined to summon their answer sheets vide judgment and order impugned in the Special
Appeal No.1495 of 2011, as all the petitioners-appellants are to be tested on the same
footing, as petitioner-appellant Rajveer Singh Yadav in the Special Appeal No.839 of 2012,
therefore, Special Appeal No.1495 of 2011 also deserves to be allowed.

21. As all the petitioners-appellants are getting benefit of declaration of result of their
Hindi Essay Papers on the basis of Ist evaluation, therefore, it wil not be proper to deny the
same benefits to the petitioner-non-appellant/ intervenor Suresh Chandra in view of the
above, he is also found to be entitled for getting same. Reliefs as has/may be granted to
other petitioners/appellants as such intervening application No. 349695 of 2012 also
deserves to be allowed.

22. In view of our findings recorded in preceding paras, we find no merit in the Special
Appeal No.1220 of 2012 and it is liable to be dismissed.

23. For all the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following orders:-

i. Special Appeal No.839 of 2012 is allowed. Respondents are directed to declare
the petitioner-appellant Rajveer Singh Yadav, successful in Hindi Essay Paper on the basis
of having secured more than 50%, i.e., 53 marks in the first evaluation of his answer sheet.

ii. Intervening Application No.349695 of 2012 filed in Special Appeal No.1220 of
2012- State of U.P. Vs. Rajveer Singh Yadav, is allowed. Respondents are directed to
declare petitioner-non appellant/intervenor Suresh Chandra successful in Hindi Essay Paper
on the basis of having secured more than 50%, i.e., 53 marks in the first evaluation of his
answer sheet.

iii. Special Appeal No.1495 of 2011 is also allowed. Respondents are directed to
declare the result of petitioners-appellants Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh,
Constable 1082 Civil Police, Satendra Kumar, Constable 1048 Civil Police, Sanjeev Kumar,
Constable 343, Civil Police, Omveer Singh Nagar, Constable 204 Civil Police Dayachand
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and Head Constable 106 Civil Police Mahesh Kumar on the basis of marks obtained by
respective appellants in the first evaluation of their answer sheets.

iv. Accordingly, all the petitioner-appellants who obtained 50% or more marks in
the Hindi Essay Paper in the first evaluation of answer-sheet shall be treated as successful in
Hindi Essay Paper. The respondents will as a consequqnce declare result of all above
petitioners- appellants and petitioner- non appellant/intervenor Suresh Chandra, within two
months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.

v. Special Appeal No.1220 of 2012 filed by the State- appellant is dismissed with
costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.
THE HON'BLE AMAR SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Special Appeal Defective No.- 647 of 2015

M/s. Maya Press Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Shri Krishna Mohan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shri Amit Negi

First appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having
registered office at 281 Muthiganj, Allahabad and the second appellant is the Director of the company.
Both the appellants filed writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the notice dated 22.05.2015
issued by Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner/Recovery Officer, respondent no. 3 herein
under Section 8-B (i) of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1952) and Income Tax
Act, 1961 issued to appellant no. 2 to show cause why he may not be detain in civil prison for failure
to satisfy the demand raised by Recovery Certificate RRC No. 5065 dated 20.04.2001, 40731 dated
08.04.2004, 45857 dated 27.04.2000 for a sum of Rs.71,81,297/- and has also failed to pay the
interest under Section 7Q of the Act, 1952.

"By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for rejecting the impugned recovery
notice dated 22.5.2015 under Section 8-B (i) of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 and the Income Tax Act, 1961
issued by the respondent no.3 to the petitioner no.2 and further prayed for direction to the
respondents to decide the petitioner's representation dated 11.1.2014and 4.7.2014 after affording due
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.