# Doli v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 5 ILRA 100
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-04-08
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 226 of 2021
- **Bench:** Manoj Misra, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/doli-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47041
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Service Law - Where a candidate is
put to notice that before uploading the data
she must cross check the data with her
testimonials and obtain a print-out thereof
before uploading and, once it is uploaded,
the question whether she should or should
not be allowed to correct a mistake
depends upon the existence of enabling
provisions found in a statute or rule or
executive instructions. A person seeking a
writ of mandamus must demonstrate that a
right inheres in him casts a corresponding
duty/obligation upon the public authority or
State or its instrumentality to perform, or
desist from performing, such act for which
a
writ
of
mandamus
is
sought.
The
petitioner has failed to demonstrate that
any such right inheres in her under a
Statute or rule or executive instructions.
(Para 8)

Special Appeal Rejected. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:-
5 All. Doli Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
101

## Text

100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
are not hereby expressly declared to be
void." Nothing herein contained shall affect
any law in force in India, and not hereby
expressly repealed, by which any contract
is required to be made in writing or in the
presence of witnesses, or any law relating
to the registration of documents."

24. The law as applicable in India on
the issue of contract with minor can be
stated to have derived from the decision of
the Privi Council in Mohori Bibee Vs.
Dharmodas Ghose (1903) ILR 30 Cal. 539
(P.C.). In that case the Privi Council, on the
wording of The Indian Contract Act, 1872
held that all contracts of minors were void
and not merely voidable. The position of
law would be different when a contract is
made by a guardian of a minor so as to be
binding on a minor and is also for the
benefit of the minor, then is an enforceable
contract in law and the minor can enforce
it.

25. It is therefore held that the
agreement dated 31.7.2020 purporting to be
of marriage and consent to cohabit
together, cannot be given effect so as to
issue notice to opposite parties for
production of petitioner in court for the
purpose of recording her desire to ratify her
alleged agreement to marry/consent deed,
for the reason of the same being a void
agreement.

26. In view of the above discussions,
the petition at the very threshold is
dismissed.

27. However, this decision shall not
impede the petitioner to enter into marital
relations with person of her choice,
whosoever
may
be,
on
attaining
marriageable age through a lawfully
solemnized marriage or otherwise by any
mode prescribed by law relating to
marriage.
----------

(2021)05ILR A100
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 226 of 2021

Doli ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Kishun Misra, Sri Jal Singh Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Service Law - Where a candidate is
put to notice that before uploading the data
she must cross check the data with her
testimonials and obtain a print-out thereof
before uploading and, once it is uploaded,
the question whether she should or should
not be allowed to correct a mistake
depends upon the existence of enabling
provisions found in a statute or rule or
executive instructions. A person seeking a
writ of mandamus must demonstrate that a
right inheres in him casts a corresponding
duty/obligation upon the public authority or
State or its instrumentality to perform, or
desist from performing, such act for which
a
writ
of
mandamus
is
sought.
The
petitioner has failed to demonstrate that
any such right inheres in her under a
Statute or rule or executive instructions.
(Para 8)

Special Appeal Rejected. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:-
5 All. Doli Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
101
1. Archana Chauhan Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Civil
Appeal No. 3068, arising out of SLP (Civil) No.
9541 of 2020 (distinguished)

2. Ram Manohar Yadav Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
Special Appeal No. 834 of 2013

3. Km. Richa Pandey Vs Examination Regulatory
Authority & anr. Special Appeal Defective No.
117 of 2014

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J)

1. This intra court appeal arises from a
judgment and order of a Single Judge, dated
23.09.2020, in Writ-A No.7159 of 2020 by
which though the writ petition of the appellant
has been partly allowed but the prayer to allow
correction in the entry relating to marks
obtained
by
her
in
the
Intermediate
Examination filled in her form, submitted
online, for Assistant Teacher Recruitment
Examination, 2019, has been denied.

2. A glimpse at the facts giving rise to
the appeal would be apposite. The State
Government issued a notification to fill up
69,000 posts of Assistant Teacher in primary
schools in various districts of the State. To
that end, an Assistant Teacher Recruitment
Examination, 2019 (for short ARTE, 2019)
was proposed to be conducted by the
Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj
(for short Authority). The appellant applied
online with Registration No.130002862 and
was assigned Roll No.12133720438. In the
examination that followed, on 12.05.2020 the
appellant was declared qualified. After
declaration of result, U.P. Basic Shiksha
Parishad (for short Parishad) invited online
applications from successful candidates for
counselling and appointment. The petitioner
applied by feeding her registration number
which reflected the data already filled by her
earlier while getting registered for the ARTE,
2019. On such online submission, as per
her
merit,
she
was
allotted
district
Shahjahanpur. Appellant's case is that when
she discovered that in her online submission
two entries were incorrect, namely, total
marks of her graduation course, which were
shown as 1300 in place of 1350, and marks
obtained in Intermediate Examination, which
were shown as 289 in place of 287 marks, she
made
representation
to
the
Secretary,
Authority and the Secretary, Parishad. When
no action was taken on her representations,
she filed Writ A No.7159 of 2020 before a
Single Judge Bench of this Court, which was
partly allowed by the impugned judgment
and order to the extent correction was sought
in the grand total of graduation marks.

3. Before the learned Single Judge a
decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Archana Chauhan versus State of UP &
others (Civil appeal No.3068 of 2020,
arising out of SLP (Civil) No.9541 of 2020,
dated 2.9.2020) was cited by which the Apex
Court allowed rectification of a mistake
committed by a candidate, who had appeared
in ARTE, 2019, in filling the total marks of
all the papers of the Intermediate examination
passed by the candidate. In that case, the
candidate had secured certain marks against a
total of 500 marks but, by mistake, this total
was entered as 5000. The Apex Court upon
finding that the erroneous entry of which
correction was sought had been to the
candidate's detriment, and that the candidate
had not taken any advantage of that error,
allowed rectification. The learned Single
Judge following the judgment of the Apex
Court allowed rectification to the extent
prayed for in the total marks of the graduation
course, that is the learned Single Judge
allowed increase in the total marks of the
graduation course from 1300 to 1350. But the
learned Single Judge refused correction in the
102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
entry of marks alleged to have been obtained
in the Intermediate Examination on the
ground that the disclosed marks were higher
than what the candidate actually obtained
and, therefore, it had a bearing on the
selection process. While rejecting that prayer,
the learned Single Judge noticed clause 17 of
the
Government
notification,
which
instructed the candidate to cross check the
data fed from the testimonials, and to obtain a
printout of that data, before uploading. Subclauses (5) and (6) of clause 17, specifically
warned the candidate that after the data is
uploaded, no correction/ alteration would be
allowed under any circumstances.

4. We have heard learned counsel for
the appellant and the learned standing
counsel for the respondents and have
perused the records.

5. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that reduction of the
marks obtained would come to the
detriment
of
the
appellant
therefore,
applying the principle deducible from the
decision of the Apex Court in Archana
Chauhan's case (supra), correction ought
to be allowed and, under the circumstances,
there is no justification to deny an
opportunity to the appellant to correct an
obvious human error. He further submitted
that admittedly the appellant had qualified
the
written
examination
and
for
appointment she would have had to show
her testimonials therefore correction, to
make the marks in sync with her
testimonials, would cause no prejudice to
the other participating candidates.

6. Per contra, the learned standing
counsel submitted that the instructions in
the notification had put the candidate on
notice that any mistake would not be
allowed to be corrected and, therefore, the
instructions had warned that before feeding
the data a cross check of the data with the
testimonials
be
made.
Under
the
circumstances, no mandamus ought to be
issued to the authorities to deviate from
their avowed policy decision which applies
universally to all candidates. He also
submitted that the Apex Court has not laid
down as a law that all errors arising out of
human error be allowed to be corrected
even if a candidate is put to notice that he
will not be allowed to correct mistake once
the data is uploaded. He also cited a
decision of a Division Bench of this Court
in Special Appeal No.834 of 2013 (Ram
Manohar Yadav v. State of U.P. &
others, decided on 30.05.2013).

7. We have given our anxious
consideration to the rival submissions. Before
we
proceed
to
weigh
the
respective
submissions, it would be useful to notice the
decision of this Court in Special Appeal
No.834 of 2013 (Ram Manohar Yadav v.
State of U.P. & others, decided on
30.05.2013). In that case, the appellant, who
had applied for selection on the post of a
teacher, had not filled the online application
form correctly. He, therefore, applied for
rectification of the mistake, which was not
accepted. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition
which was dismissed by a Single Judge
Bench of this Court. Aggrieved therewith, he
filed Special Appeal before a Division Bench
of this Court. While dismissing the appeal,
the Division Bench observed: "if prospective
teacher can not even correctly fill up the
simple on line application form for his
employment, it is obvious what he is going to
teach, if appointed. There are certain
decisions cited on this issue. But none of
them deal with this aspect whether under the
discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under
article 226 of the Constitution of India such
incompetent persons should be allowed to
5 All. Doli Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
103
play with the future of the next generation."
In a different context, the above decision of
this Court was noticed with approval by
another Division Bench of this Court in
Special Appeal Defective No.117 of 2014
(Km. Richa Pandey v. Examination
Regulatory
Authority
and
another,
decided on 18.02.2014). There the petitioner
had not filled the column of language in
which she had attempted answers in the
OMR answer sheet. The learned Single Judge
found that in absence of mention of language
in which the answers were attempted, OMR
sheet would not be acceptable for evaluation
and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed. The Division Bench, on appeal,
called for the records and found that there
were clear instructions that if requisite
columns are not filled correctly, the answers
will not be evaluated. Thus, while affirming
the decision of the learned Single Judge, the
Division Bench observed:

"The OMR sheets are provided
to the candidates to speed up evaluation
through help of computer. In case we
accept the argument of learned counsel
for the petitioner that the language in
which the petitioner had written essay
could be checked up by the examiner
before
feeding
answer
book
into
computer, the entire process of expediting
the results will be lost. Where OMR
sheets are to be examined with the aid of
the computer, it is not advisable and
practical to direct that each OMR sheet
should be checked by the examiners and
the columns, which have not been filled
up may be filled up by the examiner
himself with the aid of the language used
by the candidates for writing essay. We
are informed by Standing Counsel that
about
seven
lacs
candidates
had
appeared in the test.

With such large number of
candidates appearing in TET Examination
2013 it would not have been possible nor it
was feasible for examiners to look into the
answer sheets individually before feeding
them into computer for correcting any
mistakes.

We agree with the reasoning
given by the learned Single Judge that
where the applicant is not capable of
correctly filling up the form, she is not
entitled to any discretionary relief from
the Court." (Emphasis Supplied)

8. Having noticed the two Division
Bench decisions of this Court, the issue
which arises for our consideration is
whether a candidate who is put to notice
that before uploading the data she must
cross check the data with her testimonials
and obtain a print-out thereof before
uploading and, once it is uploaded, she
would not be allowed to correct a mistake,
could seek a writ of mandamus upon the
authorities to allow her to correct the
mistake. The answer to it would depend
upon existence of enabling provisions
found in a statute or rule or executive
instructions. No statutory provision or rule
or instruction has been shown to us which
may allow such correction despite clear
instructions
to
the
contrary
in
the
notification. It has also not been shown to
us that the authorities have allowed such
corrections to other candidates. It is well
settled that a mandamus is ordinarily to be
issued upon a public authority to perform
its duty or obligation cast upon it by law. A
person seeking a writ of mandamus must
therefore demonstrate that a right inheres in
him that casts a corresponding duty /
obligation upon the public authority or
State or its instrumentality to perform, or
104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
desist from performing, such act for which
a writ of mandamus is sought. That right
may be derived, inter alia, from the
Constitution of India, a statute or a rule or
an executive instruction. The petitioner has
failed to demonstrate that any such right
inheres in her under a Statute or rule or
executive instructions. Whether such right
inheres in her under the Constitution of
India needs to be examined. Interestingly,
the petitioner has not challenged the
instructions contained in clause 17 of the
notification as violative of Part III of the
Constitution of India or any statutory
provision or rule. Otherwise also, in
matters relating to public examinations,
such strict instructions as are found in
clause 17 of the notification are desirable to
prevent foul play and to ensure expeditious
conclusion of the recruitment process,
inasmuch as if candidates are allowed to
correct/alter data their merit position would
alter
accordingly,
resulting
in
utter
confusion.
Therefore,
ex
facie,
such
instructions do not appear arbitrary. In
these
circumstances, we are of the
considered view, the appellant has failed to
make out a case for issuance of a writ in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to rectify the mistake made by
her in her online submission.

9. The decision of the Apex Court in
Archana Chauhan's case (supra) does not
lay down as a law that all rectifications of
any nature must be allowed. Moreover, in
Archana Chauhan's case (supra), the
information of which correction was
allowed was not in respect of the marks
obtained by a candidate but was in respect
of an obvious error of adding a zero to the
total marks for which the candidate had
appeared in the Intermediate examination.
Thus, in our considered view, the learned
Single Judge rightly observed that the
second correction sought would not be
covered by the decision in Archana
Chauhan's case. For all the reasons
mentioned above, we find no good ground
to interfere with the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge. The
appeal is dismissed.
----------
(2021)05ILR A104
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.04.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY YADAV, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 318 of 2021
AND
Special Appeal Defective No. 319 of 2021
AND
Special Appeal Defective No. 320 of 2021
AND
Special Appeal Defective No. 321 of 2021

Nishant Yadav & Ors. ....Petitioners
Versus
The Registrar General & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Shailendra Srivastava, Sri Shailendra
(Senior Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Harendra Prakash Dwivedi, Sri Ashish
Mishra

A. Civil Law - U.P. District Court Service
Rules, 2013 - Ch. II, R. 9 - Post of Clerk
and Stenographer - Recruitment - Stage
II
examination
-
Application
of
subsequent
criteria
to
the
selection
already initiated - Retrospective Effect -
Held, the approach of learned Single
Judge
to
adjudge
the
efficiency
of
respective candidates by incursing the
resolution of 2019, which laid down the