# Prashant Rai v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1351
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-20
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 11837 of 2020
- **Bench:** Shaurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prashant-rai-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53466
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - Judicial Review of Answer
Key provided by the Expert Committee -
Whether court should interfere with the
evaluation
process
of
the
Assistant
Teacher Recruitment Examination (ATRE)
2018, specifically regarding objections to
the answer key, unevaluated answers,
cuttings/overwriting, omission of units,
and discrepancies in awarding marks?
Held: Law is well settled that the onus is
on the candidate to not only demonstrate
that the key answer is incorrect but also
that it is a glaring mistake which is totally
apparent and no inferential process or
reasoning is required to show that the key
answer is wrong. Constitutional courts
must exercise great restraint in such
matters
and
should
be
reluctant to
entertain
a
plea
challenging
the
correctness of the key answers. The court
should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise
the answer sheets of a candidate-it has
no expertise in the matter and academic
matters are best left to academics. The
court should presume the correctness of
the key answers and proceed on that
assumption, and in the event of a doubt,
the benefit should go to the examination
authority rather than to the candidate.
(Para 12)

Dismissed. (E-5)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,955 of 68,250. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39955 for what follows._

5 All. Prashant Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1351
the fresh proceedings. In the facts of the
present case, the employee i.e. petitioner has
retired way back. Further the charges against
the petitioner are stale as the departmental
proceedings were initiated after lapse of
about 17 years from the date of alleged
misconduct. In my view, no useful purpose
would served in directing for fresh inquiry
and it will be unfair to permit the
departmental inquiry at this stage.

57. In the facts of the present case, I
am of the view, the inquiry proceedings are
vitiated for non-observance of procedure as
prescribed under Rule 7 of Rules, 1999 as
well as being in violation of principles of
natural justice. Further, I am of the view
that there was no evidence against the
petitioner as the Inquiry Officer has failed
to examine any witness to prove photocopy
of the documents, which were given to the
Inquiry Officer by the department. The
Inquiry Officer has not even cared to
examine the original record, especially,
under
the
circumstances
when
the
petitioner raised doubt to the correctness of
photocopies which were made available to
the petitioner as well as before the Inquiry
Officer. The disciplinary authority as well
as the appellate authority have also not
recorded any independent finding on the
representation submitted by the petitioner
against the findings of the Inquiry Officer
and has confirmed the findings recorded by
the Inquiry Officer. Non-consideration of
representation of the petitioner against the
findings of the Inquiry Officer is in
violation of sub-Rule 4 of Rule 9 of Rules,
1999 as well as also in violation of
principles of natural justice that orders
affecting the rights of the parties must
contain reason.

58. Apart from all these, I am also of the
view that the charges against the petitioner
were stale as the alleged misconduct was
committed by the petitioner in the year 1983
which came in the knowledge of the
department-respondent in the year 1984 as per
the charge-sheet itself but no effort was made
by the respondent authority to initiate
proceedings against the petitioner till 1999 and
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against
the petitioner after a lapse of 17 years.

59. For these reasons, I am of the
considered opinion that the order impugned
could not be sustained and is liable to be
quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The
order dated 23.02.2004 is set aside.

60. The petitioner will be entitled for all
consequential
benefits
which
shall
be
calculated and given to the petitioner by the
respondents within a period of three months
from the date of production of certified copy
of this order before the respondents. In case,
the consequential benefits are not given to the
petitioner as indicated above, the petitioner
will be entitled for payment of 7 per cent
interest from the date of judgment till actual
payment is made to the petitioner. No order as
to costs.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1351
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ-A No. 11837 of 2020
Connected with other cases

Prashant Rai ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
1352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Radha Kant Ojha (Sr. Adv.), Shatrughan Sonwal,
Shivendu Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Arun Kumar, C.S.C., Kushmondeya Shahi

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - Judicial Review of Answer
Key provided by the Expert Committee -
Whether court should interfere with the
evaluation
process
of
the
Assistant
Teacher Recruitment Examination (ATRE)
2018, specifically regarding objections to
the answer key, unevaluated answers,
cuttings/overwriting, omission of units,
and discrepancies in awarding marks?
Held: Law is well settled that the onus is
on the candidate to not only demonstrate
that the key answer is incorrect but also
that it is a glaring mistake which is totally
apparent and no inferential process or
reasoning is required to show that the key
answer is wrong. Constitutional courts
must exercise great restraint in such
matters
and
should
be
reluctant to
entertain
a
plea
challenging
the
correctness of the key answers. The court
should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise
the answer sheets of a candidate-it has
no expertise in the matter and academic
matters are best left to academics. The
court should presume the correctness of
the key answers and proceed on that
assumption, and in the event of a doubt,
the benefit should go to the examination
authority rather than to the candidate.
(Para 12)

Dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shivendu Ojha and Sri
Shatrughan Sonwal, learned counsel for
petitioner in leading W.P.No.11837 of 2020
and respective Ld. Counsel in connected
Writ Petitions on behalf of petitioners, Sri
K.Shahi, Sri K. K. Chand, learned counsel
for the B.S.A., Sri Ashish Nagwanshi,
learned A.C.S.C, Sri Rajeshwar Tripathi
learned C.S.C and Ms.Shruti Malviya,
Brief Holder in all Writ Petitions.

2. This present bunch of Writ
Petitions, arises out of an Assistant Teacher
Recruitment
Examination,
2018
and
objections to answers given by the
petitioners to some questions of said
examination.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that
if their objections are considered and
accordingly their respective marks are
increased, they may cross cut off marks i.e.
67 marks for General Category or 60 marks
for SC Category, as the case may be.

4. This dispute has earlier brought
before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Writ Petition No.18235 of 2018, Aniruddh
Narayan Shukla and 118 Ors Vs. State of
U.P. & 3 Ors, which was disposed of vide
judgment
dated
30.10.2018,
wherein
certain directions were passed for reevaluation of answers and for reference
directions given therein are reproduced
hereinafter:

"In light of what has been
observed
above,
it
would
now
be
appropriate to refer to the specific issues
that have been crystallized by this Court
earlier for consideration of petitioners'
grievances.

(I) Some of the petitioners have
not been awarded marks against their
correct answers because their answers
have not been evaluated at all:

It has been noticed that some of
the petitioners have not been awarded
marks
against
their
correct
answers
because their answers have not been
evaluated at all. This does not create any
difficulty
once
the
authorities
have
undertaken to allow re-evaluation of
5 All. Prashant Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1353
answer sheet itself. While conducting reevaluation, this aspect can be specifically
examined and instances of this kind would
be corrected by awarding marks for correct
answers, which have not been evaluated
earlier.

The
first
issue
is
resolved,
accordingly.

(II) No marks have been awarded
against certain other correct answers on
account of the fact that there is some
cutting noted in the scanned copies, though
there is no such cutting available on the
carbon copies:

The
second
category
of
petitioners' grievance has been enumerated
in following words:-

The scanned copies have been
issued to a large number of candidates in
terms of guidelines upon deposit of Rs.
2,000/- as fee. In cases, where it is found
that though no cutting exists in the carbon
copy retained by the candidate while
cutting appears in the answer sheet, it
would be appropriate to permit such
petitioners to produce materials in support
of such allegation before the Examination
Regulatory Authority, within a period of
two weeks from today, along with certified
and/or true copy of this order. The
authority would examine such instances
and an appropriate decision would be
taken and communicated to the petitioner
concerned.

(III) The key answers to some of
the questions are stated to be clearly wrong
as per existing NCERT books and other
expert material:

The third issue highlighted on
behalf of the petitioners is regarding
correction of model answers with reference
to various literatures available and relied
upon
in
support
of
the
petitioners'
contention. Shri Saroj Yadav has placed
before this Court literature in order to show
that the answer, mentioned in the uploaded
answer key, of question no. 37 of Booklet
Series 'A' is not correct and that, a different
answer would be the correct answer. Such
objection, however,
need
not
to
be
examined by this Court, on merits, for the
simple reason that none of the petitioners
has raised such a grievance before the
Examination Regulatory Authority within
the time which had been allowed for the
purpose by the Authority while publishing
the schedule of conduct of examination
itself.

I am inclined to take such a view
in
view
of
the
peculiar
facts
and
circumstances of the present case where
68,500 appointments are to be made and
candidates, above 1 lac, have applied
pursuant
to
the
advertisement.
The
schedule
of
examination
was
widely
published and every candidate was aware
of his right to object to the answers, which
had been tentatively uploaded on the
website
of
the
Authority.
Once
the
petitioners have failed to avail of such
opportunity and no objection has been
raised, this Court would not be inclined to
entertain such objections, now, at this
stage. Even otherwise, on merits, it is found
that the objections, which had been raised
by some of the persons against the answer
key, had been placed before the Committee
of experts consisting of three Associate
Professors of the Allahabad University and
its affiliated Colleges and the original
proceedings of examining the objections
have been produced before this Court.
Once the applicants were given an
opportunity to file their objections, which
has not been availed, this Court would not
like to interfere with the opinion of the
experts, which are, otherwise, entitled to
great
respect.
In
the
totality
of
circumstances, therefore, this Court is not
inclined to enter into the issue of
1354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
correctness of answer and the evaluation
would be confined to correct answer key
already uploaded by the authorities. Court
may, otherwise, note that only one question
has been highlighted as containing two
possible answers, one of which is alleged to
be wrong.

(IV) Against some questions,
marks have not been awarded for correct
answers on the pretext that there exists
some cutting before correct answers have
been found recorded though the answers
are otherwise legible:

The fourth issue highlighted on
behalf of the petitioners is with reference to
answers, even when are correct, no marks
have been awarded in view of certain
cuttings or overwriting, although answers
are right and legible. It has already been
observed that the Examination Regulatory
Authority would not give precedence to
form over substance and if the answers are
correct, the candidates would be awarded
marks, even if there is some cuttings or
overwriting. This, however, would be
subject to the answer being legible and
clear. It is also clarified that if the
candidates
have
given
two
answers,
although they were required to give one
answer, then the examining authority would
be at liberty to ignore the answer; in as
much as, the applicants/candidates are
expected to give only one answer and not
two answers.

(V) No marks have been awarded
to some of the correct answers if the unit
such as 'Rupees' or 'Kilometre' etc. has not
been written or minor grammatical errors
have been made while the answer is
materially and substantially correct:

The fifth category of candidates,
again, are those who have highlighted the
instances of giving preference to form over
substance. In order to substantiate the
grievance, reference is made to question
no. 66, as well as its answer shown in
model answer key, which is extracted
hereinafter:

"Q.66. If the wages of 6 men for
15 days be Rs. 2100, then find the wages of
9 men for 12 days.

यकद 6 पुरूिों िी 15 कदिों िी मजदूरी रू. 2100
हो, तो 9 पुरूिों िी 12 कदि िी मजदूरी ज्ञात िीकजए।

Its answer, as per model answer
key, reads as under:-

रू० 2520 या Rs. 2520"

It is pointed out that many of the
candidates, who have mentioned the
answer as "2520" but have failed to
mention rupee (Rs.) as unit, have been
denied marks. The question intended to test
the mathematical ability of the candidate
and if the candidate was right, then answer
could not have been held wrong only
because the unit was not specified in the
answer.

Similarly, Question No. 55 of
Booklet Series 'A' reads as under:-

"Q.55. Find each of exterior
angles of a regular polygon of 10 sides.

एि दस र्ुजाओं वाले कियकमत बहुर्ुज िे प्रत्येि
बाह्य िोणों िो ज्ञात िीकजए।"

Its answer, as per model answer
key, reads as under:-

"36°"

Its answer in the model answer
key is specified as '36°'. Some of the
candidates have mentioned the correct
answer as '36', but the degree sign
mentioned is not legible or clear or
omitted, which has been treated as a wrong
answer. Question No. 135, similarly, is also
extracted hereinafter:-

"Q.135. Mohan starts to walk in
west direction and wals 3 km, then turns
right and walks further 4 km. He further
turns left and walks 2 km, again turns left
and walks 4 km. How far is Mohan from its
origin and in what direction?.
5 All. Prashant Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1355

मोहि पकश्चम िी ओर 3 कि०मी० चलिर अपिी
दायी ओर मुडता है और 4 किमी० चलता है कफर बायी ओर मुडिर
2 कि०मी० चलता है तदुपरान्त पुिः बायी ओर मुडिर 4 कि०मी०
िी दूरी तय िरता है। वह अपिे चलिे िे स्थाि से कितिी दूर व
किस कदशा में है? "

Its answer, as per model answer
key, reads as under:-

"5 कि०मी० पकश्चम।

Some of the candidates, who have
written the correct answer, if have failed to
clarify kms./kilometer, their answer has
been treated as wrong.

From all these questions, it
appears that even where the calculation is
right, but the unit is omitted, the answer
has been treated as wrong. Although
writing of unit may be desirable, but its
omission ought not to be a ground to deny
awarding of marks, since the object is to
evaluate the mathematical skill and ability
of the candidate himself. The authorities,
therefore, for the purpose of re-evaluation,
would not given unnecessary importance to
such omission in mentioning of unit, etc.,
like rupee (Rs.) or kms./kilometer, etc.

(VI) Gross inconsistencies exist in
awarding marks in cases of overwriting
inasmuch as for some answers to some
students full marks have been awarded
despite overwriting though no marks have
been awarded to others for similar
mistakes:

The sixth category of cases
relates to candidates, according to whom, a
differential treatment has been meted out to
some of them; in as much as, while, in some
cases of overwriting, correct marks have
been awarded, but it has been denied in
other cases. It is alleged by the petitioners
that in identical circumstances, for some of
the candidates where cutting has been
made, the examining body has awarded
marks to such candidates, but the similar
treatment has been denied to them.

Since this Court has already
observed that the Examination Regulatory
Authority would adopt an approach that
would help the identification of good talent
for being recruited as Assistant Teachers in
the Institutions throughout the State, mere
cutting, etc., would not be a ground to deny
consideration of correct answers and the
observations, already made while dealing
with the second category of persons, would
apply here as well.

(VII)
For
some
questions,
multiple answers (more than one) have
been shown as correct answers in the
model/key answer sheet. However, marks
have been awarded only for one or the
other of the multiple correct answers and
not for all:

The seventh category also would
not create much difficulty; in as much as,
for all right answers shown in the model
answer key, the examiner would be
required to award marks to the candidates.
The evaluation, therefore, would not be
restricted to some of the right answers
only; in as much as, many of the questions
contain multiple right answers.

(VIII) Some of the petitioners
claim that they have been declared not
qualified though the marks that have been
awarded to them as per the scanned copies
are clearly above the qualifying marks:

The last category, i.e., eighth
category, of cases pertains to those who
have not been included in the select list,
although, from the perusal of the scanned
copy, it appears that they have obtained
marks above the cut off prescribed for
recruitment. Learned State's counsel, on the
basis of the instructions obtained from the
Secretary of the Examination Regulatory
Authority, states that all such cases would
be duly considered and if candidates have
scored marks above the cut off, they would
be
included
in
the
select
list.
An
1356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opportunity is, however, extended to all
such candidates to furnish materials in
support
of
their
claim
before
the
Examination Regulatory Authority, within a
period of two weeks from today, along with
certified and/or true copy of this order.

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 re-evaluation, for
the simple reason that the writ petitions
were pending before this 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 re-evaluation,
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.

The Secretary of the Examination
Regulatory Authority states that the task of reevaluation would be completed expeditiously,
preferably, within a period of two months from
today. It is, however, provided that so long as
such exercise is not completed, the left over
seats/vacancies of the recruitment in question
would not be subjected to a fresh process of
recruitment.

With the observations/directions
aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of,
accordingly.

No order is passed as to costs."

5. Another Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in (Writ Petition No.5365 of 2019),
Radha Devi & 2 Ors Vs.State of U.P. & 3
Ors, order dated 17.5.2019, also has
considered
answer
key
of
same
examination and in reference question
no.10 of Booklet Series 'C' has held it's
answer "दीघथ सतन्द्ि' "थवर सतन्द्ि". Relevant part of
said order is reproduced hereinafter:

"Expert report with regard to the
answer to question Nos.10 & 55 of question
Booklet Series-C produced by the learned
Standing Counsel is taken on record.

It is demonstrated by the learned
counsel for the petitioner from the question
booklet series-C, key answer and answer
scripts of petitioner no.3 that answers given
by him to question nos.10 & 55 are correct.
Two marks are, therefore, to be provided to
the petitioner No.3 for the said answer.
Initially, in the original result the petitioner
got 63 marks and after re-evaluation, his
marks have been raised to 65 by assigning
marks to question Nos.52 & 54.

The respondent no.4 namely,
Secretary,
Examination
Regulatory
Authority, U.P., Allahabad is directed to
make correction in the result of the
petitioner No.3 by providing two more
marks to the question nos.10 & 55. The
corrected result of the petitioner no.3 shall
be uploaded at the website within a
fortnight from today.

The writ petition is allowed to the
above extent."

6. Aforesaid order was challenged in
Special Appeal Defective No.756 of 2019,
by the State, however it was dismissed vide
order dated 20.8.2010. For reference same
is reproduced hereinafter:
5 All. Prashant Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1357

"Order on Appeal

Heard Sri Ajit Kumar Singh,
learned Additional Advocate General,
assisted by Sri Pankaj Rai, Additional
Chief Standing Counsel, for the Stateappellant and Sri Radha Kant Ojha, Senior
Counsel, assisted by Sri Avnish Tripathi,
learned counsel for the respondents.

The present appeal has been filed
challenging the judgement and order dated
17.5.2019 passed in Writ - A No. 5365 of
2019 whereby the learned Single Judge has
directed the correction of the result of the
petitioner therein in respect to two
questions. The two questions i.e. Question
Nos. 10 and 55, the answer given by the
candidate and Model Answers are quoted
herein below:

Q. No. 10 : " सुखातभः" में िौि सी सकन्ध
है?

The
answer
given
by
the
petitioner is : दीघभ सकन्ध while the model
answer is : वृकद्ध सकन्ध/स्वर सकन्ध।

Q. No. 55 : The Rehabilitation
Council of India (RCI) is established for
the education of which type of children ?

'र्ारतीय पुिभवास पररिद' िी स्थापिा किस प्रिार िे
बच्चों िे कशिा िे कलए दी िई है?

The
answer
given
by
the
petitioner is : 'कपछडे बालिों िे कलए एवं कवकशष्ट बालिों'
while the model answer is : ' कविलांि/कदव्यांि
बच्चो हेतु/ शारीररि रूप से अिम/ कवकशष्ट बालि/
पी०डब्लू०डी०/ किशक्त / अिम'।

Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior
Counsel for the respondents, has brought to
our notice the earlier order passed in this
writ petition being order dated 3.5.2019
wherein learned Single Judge had held that
the model answer to Question No. 10 was a
wrong answer based upon the reference
material which was brought before the
Court to demonstrate that the correct
answer is what was given by the petitioner
and not as was indicated in the model
answer.

With regard to Question No. 55,
learned Single Judge found that the answer
was correct as per the model answer and
on that basis the Court had directed for
addition
of
two
marks.
The
State
Government has not challenged the order
dated 3.5.2019 as such the said order is not
to be adjudicated. As regards the addition
for the answer given of Question No. 55 the
same is squarely covered by our decision in
Special Appeal No. 902 of 2019 (State of
U.P. And 3 Others vs. Pradeep Kumar) and
two other connected appeals, decided on
13.8.2019. In view of the fact that the order
dated 3.5.2019 is not under challenge, we
hold that there is no infirmity in the
judgement and order dated 17.5.2019, as a
restult thereof, special appeal is liable to be
dismissed.

The
special
appeal
is,
accordingly, dismissed.

7. State of U.P. has further challenged
the above referred order by way of a
Special Leave Petition No.11462 of 2020,
which was dismissed by Supreme Court
vide order dated 9.10.2020.

8. It is further case of the petitioners
that subsequent to the order passed in
Aniruddh Shukla (supra), they have filed
their respective objections. However, their
answers were not considered in terms of
Aniruddh Shukla (supra), therefore, they
are prejudiced.

9. During the hearing, Court has
asked learned counsels for the petitioners to
take instructions that if the objections
raised in respective writ petitions are
allowed in totality, whether they will be
able to cross the cut off marks or not and
the matter was adjourned for that purpose.
1358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. On the date of final hearing,
learned counsel for the petitioners have
submitted that only in following Writ
Petitions if their objections are found to be
correct and their numbers are increased,
they would cross cut off marks and details
of said writ petitions are as follows:

1. Writ A No. 11837 of 2020

2. Writ A No. 13075 of 2020

3. Writ A No. 12239 of 2020

4. Writ A No. 1628 of 2021

5. Writ A No. 12185 of 2020

6. Writ A No. 12418 of 2020

7. Writ A No. 917 of 2021

8. Writ A No. 14096 of 2020

9. Writ A No. 13564 of 2020

10. Writ A No. 12000 of 2021

11. Writ A No. 12692 of 2020

12. Writ A No. 12467 of 2020

13. Writ A No. 12419 of 2020

14. Writ A No. 12629 of 2020

15. Writ A No. 13506 of 2020

"

11. In aforesaid circumstances, Court
is not considering rest of writ petitions
since it would be a futile exercise and they
are disposed of with the observation that
even if their objections are considered they
will not be able to cross cut off marks.
Details of said writ petitions are mentioned
hereinafter:

1. Writ A No. 11420 of 2020

2. Writ A No. 11674 of 2020

3. Writ A No. 11683 of 2020

4. Writ A No. 11713 of 2020

5. Writ A No. 11721 of 2020

6. Writ A No. 11732 of 2020

7. Writ A No. 11742 of 2020

8. Writ A No. 11938 of 2020

9. Writ A No. 12187 of 2020

10. Writ A No. 12200 of 2020

11. Writ A No. 12221 of 2020

12. Writ A No. 12223 of 2020

13. Writ A No. 12401 of 2020

14. Writ A No. 12427 of 2020

15. Writ A No. 12444 of 2020

16. Writ A No. 12455 of 2020

17. Writ A No. 12472 of 2020

18. Writ A No. 12538 of
2020

19. Writ A No. 12708 of
2020

20. Writ A No. 12979 of
2020

21. Writ A No. 13030 of
2020

22. Writ A No. 13048 of
2020

23. Writ A No. 13174 of
2020

24. Writ A No. 13214 of
2020

25. Writ A No. 13279 of
2020

26. Writ A No. 13282 of
2020

27. Writ A No. 13294 of
2020

28. Writ A No. 13357 of
2020

29. Writ A No. 13776 of
2020

30. Writ A No. 14287 of
2020

31. Writ A No. 15040 of
2020

32. Writ A No. 15044 of
2020

33. Writ A No. 15105 of
2020

34. Writ A No. 15109 of
2020

35. Writ A No. 15114 of
2020

36. Writ A No. 15149 of
2020

37. Writ A No. 1632 of 2021
5 All. Prashant Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1359

38. Writ A No. 638 of 2021

39. Writ A No. 1681 of 2021

40. Writ A No. 1707 of 2021

41. Writ A No. 178 of 2021

42. Writ A No. 1888 of 2021

43. Writ A No. 2112 of 2021

44. Writ A No. 4157 of 2021

45. Writ A No. 4350 of 2021

46. Writ A No. 652 of 2021

47. Writ A No. 811 of 2021

48. Writ A No. 8604 of 2021

49. Writ A No. 871 of 2021

50. Writ A No. 9099 of 2021

51. Writ A No. 92 of 2021

"

12. The Court has considered rival
submissions keeping in mind, the settled
position of law of scope of judicial
review/interference under Article 226 of
Constitution of India on the issue that key
answers provided by the Expert Committee
as well as in such cases court's must
exercise restraint. For reference, relevant
part of the judgment passed by Supreme
Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh &
Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, (2018) 2
SCC 357, Vikesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors, 2021 (2) SCC 309,
Uttar
Pradesh
Public
Service
Commission through its Chairman &
Anr Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr, (2018) 7
SCC 254, Division Bench judgment of
this Court in Special Appeal No.242 of
2022, Jitendra Singh Vs. Union of India
&
Anr,
Neutral
Citation
No.2024:AHC:125327-DB
as
well
as
judgment passed in Writ Petition No.6605
of 2022, Pragati Agarwal & Ors. Vs. State
of
U.P.
&
Anr,
Neutral
Citation
No.2024:AHC:18999.
are
reproduced
hereinafter:-

" Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors

30. The law on the subject is
therefore, quite clear and we only propose
to highlight a few significant conclusions.
They are:

30.1. If a statute, Rule or
Regulation
governing
an
examination
permits the re-evaluation of an answer
sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a
matter
of
right,
then
the
authority
conducting the examination may permit it;

30.2. If a statute, Rule or
Regulation governing an examination does
not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an
answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting
it) then the court may permit re-evaluation
or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very
clearly, without any "inferential process of
reasoning
or
by
a
process
of
rationalisation" and only in rare or
exceptional cases that a material error has
been committed;

30.3. The court should not at all
re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets
of a candidate-it has no expertise in the
matter and academic matters are best left
to academics;

30.4. The court should presume
the correctness of the key answers and
proceed on that assumption; and

30.5. In the event of a doubt, the
benefit should go to the examination
authority rather than to the candidate.

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
1360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission through its Chairman & Anr
Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr

12. The law is well settled that the
onus is on the candidate to not only
demonstrate that the key answer is
incorrect but also that it is a glaring
mistake which is totally apparent and no
inferential process or reasoning is required
to show that the key answer is wrong. The
constitutional courts must exercise great
restraint in such matters and should be
reluctant to entertain a plea challenging
the correctness of the key answers. In
Kanpur
University
case
[Kanpur
University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC
309] , the Court recommended a system of:

(1) moderation;

(2) avoiding ambiguity in the
questions;

(3) prompt decisions be taken to
exclude suspected questions and no marks
be assigned to such questions.

13. As far as the present case is
concerned, even before publishing the first
list of key answers the Commission had got
the key answers moderated by two Expert
Committees. Thereafter, objections were
invited and a 26-member Committee was
constituted to verify the objections and
after
this
exercise
the
Committee
recommended that 5 questions be deleted
and in 2 questions, key answers be
changed. It can be presumed that these
Committees consisted of experts in various
subjects for which the examinees were
tested. Judges cannot take on the role of
experts in academic matters. Unless, the
candidate
demonstrates
that
the
key
answers are patently wrong on the face of
it, the courts cannot enter into the
5 All. Prashant Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1361
academic field, weigh the pros and cons of
the arguments given by both sides and then
come to the conclusion as to which of the
answers is better or more correct.

14. In the present case, we find
that all the three questions needed a long
process of reasoning and the High Court
itself has noticed that the stand of the
Commission is also supported by certain
textbooks. When there are conflicting
views, then the court must bow down to the
opinion of the experts. Judges are not and
cannot be experts in all fields and,
therefore,
they
must
exercise
great
restraint and should not overstep their
jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the
experts."

13. Court also takes note of Division
Bench judgment passed in Special Appeal
No.79 of 2020, Alok Kumar & Anr Vs.
Sate of U.P. & Ors, Neutral Citation
No.2024:AHC-LKO:58065-DB, arising out
of Examination ATRE, 2018 and for
reference, relevant part of it is reproduced
hereinafter:

" 32. For all these reasons,
though we appreciate the efforts made by
the learned counsel for the appellants but
howsoever attractive their arguments may
appear, purely on facts, this is not a case
where this Court should interfere with the
judgment of the Writ Court in an Intra
Court appeal. Even if some of the
reasonings given by the Writ Court are
erroneous, the dismissal of the writ
petitions by the Writ Court is sustained for
the reasons given hereinabove, therefore,
all the appeals fail and are accordingly
dismissed.

33. At this stage, learned counsel
for the applicants submitted in unison that
almost all the appellants have become
overage. Shri Shukla, learned counsel
appearing in one of the appeals submitted
that most of the appellants before this
Court are "Shikshamitras" and Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Yadav
(supra) had issued directions for relexation
in age for two recruitments, which they
have already availed, therefore, some
direction be issued in this regard. If any of
the appellants herein are entitled to any
benefit under the judgment of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court passed in the case of Anand
Kumar Yadav (supra), then needless to say,
the same would be available to them
irrespective of this judgment.

34. It is further provided that if
there is any provision in any Rule for
relaxation of maximum age and there is no
legal impediment in considering such
relaxation in the context of the appellants
herein, then the State Government may
consider this as per law.

35. There is another aspect of the
matter which requires our consideration.
Out of 68,500 vacancies, for which
qualifying examination was held, only
41,556 candidated were qualified, who may
have
appeared
in
the
subsequent
recruitment
process
initiated
by
the
advertisement dated 20.08.2018. Moreover,
it is informed that thereafter, another
recruitment process for filling up 69,000
posts of Assistant Teacher was initiated/
advertised on 05.12.2018, but these posts
were not included 27,713 posts against
which the qualifying examination ATRE
2018 was held and which are the subject
matter of these appeals. We asked the
learned counsel for the Board and the State
as to why another ATRE has not been held
after 2018. They submitted that there was
some litigation pending in respect of other
advertisements. We see no justification for
not holding another ATRE after 2018. We
therefore direct the State Government and
the Board, whosoever may be responsible
1362 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in this regard, to take immediate steps for
holding ATRE in terms of the relevant rules,
unless there is any legal impediment in this
regard. We further direct that if there is no
legal impediment, the said examination
should be held at the earliest and decision
with regard to holding of ATRE shall be
taken within a period of two months from
today and in that context, the relaxation of
age pertaining to the appellants herein shall
be considered as far as it may be permissible
as per the law. If there are any legal
impediments, then an advertisement to this
effect should be published in at least two
newspapers (one in Hindi and another in
English) having vide circulation through out
the State of U.P., so that the candidates may
at least know as to why the said examination
is not being held."

14. Now the Court deals with above
referred writ petitions individually.

15.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners as well as learned counsel for
the State have also prepared a chart for
convenience of this Court and Court is
heavily relying on the said charts.

16. Writ Petition No.11837 of 2020,
Prashant Rai Vs. State of U.P. and Ors..

In this case, petitioner has got 61
marks in original result and after reevaluation, his number remained same i.e.
61 and in order to qualify he requires at
least 67 marks i.e. 6 more marks.

The petitioner has raised dispute
in regard to question nos.3,5,124, 135, 140,
141 and 142 of Series 'D'.

According to learned counsel for
State, objection to questions nos.3,5,135
and 140 were already considered and
numbers were given which were included
in 61 marks.

So far as remaining 3 questions
i.e. 124, 141 and 142 are concerned,
petitioners have not answered question
No.124, therefore, no marks can be given.

The
Question
No.141
was
"Where in India was the First French
factory established? which was answered
by
petitioner
as
'Gujarat'
however,
according to answer key it was 'Surat,
Gujrat', therefore, no marks was granted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
has not disputed that First French factory
was established at Surat 'Gujarat' and most
appropriate answer would be 'Surat,
Gujarat' and not Gujarat only, therefore, no
interference is caused.

In this writ petition dispute has
also raised in regard to question nos.37, 45,
57, 136 and 144 for the first time, wherein
correct answer to the question no.37 was
'ितमलनाडू'
whereas
the
petitioner
has
answered 'िमील-नाडू' as well as he has cut
'Jammu and Kashmir', therefore, the
answer 'िमील नाडू' with a gap cannot be
considered as a correct answer.

So far as question nos.45 and 144
are concerned, marks have already been
given on first evaluation, therefore, even if
the Court considers answer nos.44,57,136
and 144 to be correct, petitioner will get
only 64 number i.e. below the cut off marks
of 67.

So far as last Question No.142 is
concerned i.e. "Who was the President of
State Constitution Committee" and the
correct answer was "Sardar Vallabh Bhai
Patel",however the answer mentioned was
"Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar" and since the
petitioner has not been able to show that
the answer given in the answer key was
wrong, therefore, objection is rejected.

In the aforesaid circumstances,
petitioner cannot be awarded any extra
marks. Writ Petition No.11837 of 2020 is
accordingly dismissed.
5 All. Prashant Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1363

Writ Petition No. 13075 of 2020
, Sandeep Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

In the present case petitioner got
64 marks before evaluation and subsequent
to it, he got 66 marks, as such he still
requires at least 2 marks to qualify.

In this writ petition dispute was in
regard to Question Nos.93, 101, 110 and
114.

According to State in regard to
Question Nos.