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

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 879
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-13
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 15229 of 2019
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/urvashi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51502
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Post of Assistant Teacher
- Cancellation of appointment - Revaluation of answer booklets - It was
found that the petitioners were granted
more marks above than their merit, i.e.,
marks granted on basis of their answer
booklets - Authority of re-valuation was
challenged
-
Held,
petitioners
were
granted benefit and were awarded more
marks than their merit in tabulation chart,
i.e., fairness and merit was compromised
- Less meritorious candidates are not
allowed to continue in service at the cost
of meritorious candidates and in order to
maintain fairness, the procedure adopted
by respondents could not be said to be
illegal - High Court imposed cost of Rs,
5000/- for each petitioners. (Para 14, 15,
18 and 20)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,984 of 46,935. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39984 for what follows._

2 All. Urvashi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
879
commanded to pass fresh orders in the
exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. After
furnishing the petitioner time to submit his reply
to the notice of enhancement, which shall be
three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment, the Chairman shall pass his
orders within six weeks of receipt of the
petitioner's reply. The order passed by the
Chairman shall be communicated to the
petitioner at his current place of posting within
a week of the orders being recorded. Needles to
say that the impugned order being quashed, in
the interregnum, the consequences shall follow
and the petitioner reinstated to his position
forthwith as an Assistant Engineer and paid his
current salary accordingly. The question of
consequential benefits, pecuniary and otherwise
shall abide by the decision of the Revisional
Authority.

26. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 879
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 15229 of 2019
Connected with
Writ - A No. 4223 of 2022
and other connected cases

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mushir Khan, Sri Amit Saxena (Senior
Adv.), Sri Ashok Khare (Senior Adv.), Sri
Himanshu Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Sri
Amaresh Yadava, Sri Chheda Lal Verma, Sri
Nand Kishore Singh, Sri Shivendu Ojha, Sri
Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Sri Vishnu Kumar

A. Service Law - Post of Assistant Teacher
- Cancellation of appointment - Revaluation of answer booklets - It was
found that the petitioners were granted
more marks above than their merit, i.e.,
marks granted on basis of their answer
booklets - Authority of re-valuation was
challenged
-
Held,
petitioners
were
granted benefit and were awarded more
marks than their merit in tabulation chart,
i.e., fairness and merit was compromised
- Less meritorious candidates are not
allowed to continue in service at the cost
of meritorious candidates and in order to
maintain fairness, the procedure adopted
by respondents could not be said to be
illegal - High Court imposed cost of Rs,
5000/- for each petitioners. (Para 14, 15,
18 and 20)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

1. Omveer Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2016:AHC:9510-DB

2. Ram Naresh Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.; 2017:AHC:185314

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

1. Fairness is the soul of any
competitive examination. Any compromise
of merit would betray confidence and trust
of meritorious candidates on examination
system and in case some irregularity is
detected during process of examination and
there is a scope to cure it, in the interest of
justice and to maintain fairness, an
endeavour has to be taken to cure it. This is
what happened in facts and circumstances
of present cases.
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Petitioners have participated in
selection for recruitment of 68500 Assistant
Teachers in Basic Education Department in
the
year
2018.
After
examination,
petitioners were in the list of selected
candidates (41556) in a result declared as
16th August, 2018. Petitioners thereafter
appeared in counselling, their documents
were verified, they were appointed and
later on they joined in September, 2018 on
probation
of
one
year.
Petitioners
appointments were cancelled by means of
similarly worded orders impugned in writ
petitions and one of such impugned order
dated 07.09.2019 annexed in leading writ
petition, i.e., Writ-A No. 15229 of 2019, is
reproduced hereinafter:

"कायादलय- नजला बेनसक नशक्षा अनधकारी,
िमीरपुर

आदेश सीं०: िे०नश०/ 236 /2019-20
नदनाींक 07:09 2019
आदेश

शासनादेश
सींख्या/1267/68-52018/2013
नदनाींक
18-08-2018
एिीं
शासनादेश
सीं०/1321/68-5-2018
नदनाींक
28.08.2018 के िम में सनचि, बेनसक नशक्षा
पररषद उ०प्र०, प्रयागराज के स्तर से ननगदत
पत्राींकैंः
बे०नश०प०/7263-7507/2018-19
नदनाींक 19.08.2018 के द्वारा 68500 स०अ०
र्ती के अन्तदगत नलक्तखत परीक्षा में उत्तीणद
41556 अभ्यनथदयोीं के सापेक्ष जनपद िमीरपुर
िेतु 263 उत्तीणद अभ्यनथदयोीं की सूची उपलब्ध
कराते हुये जनपद के ग्रामीण क्षेत्र में सींचानलत
प्राथनमक निद्यालयोीं में पदस्थ नकये जाने िेतु
ननदेश प्रदान नकये गये थे। प्राप्त ननदेश के
समादर में, प्राप्त सूची के अनुसार अभ्यनथदयोीं के
शैनक्षक अनर्लेखोीं की जाींच नकये जाने िेतु
नदनाींक 01-09-2018 से 03-09-2018 तक नजला
नशक्षा एिीं प्रनशक्षण सींस्थान र्रूिा सुमेरपुर-
िमीरपुर में काउक्तन्सनलींग आयोनजत की गयी,
आयोनजत काउक्तन्सनलींग में प्राप्त 263 की सूची में
से शैनक्षक अनर्लेखोीं की जाींच करिाये जाने िेतु
259 अभ्यथी उपक्तस्थत हुये, उपक्तस्थनत 259
अभ्यनथदयोीं में से सुश्री ज्योनत साह पुत्री श्री जगदेि
प्रसाद देिाती एिीं सुश्री उिदशी पुत्री श्री राजेश
कुमार का र्ी नाम सक्तिनलत था, जोनक पररषद
कायादलय से 263 की प्राप्त सूची के कमाींक 125
पर सुश्री ज्योनत साह पुत्री श्री जगदेि प्रसाद
देिाती ि 205 पर सुश्री उिदशी पुत्री श्री राजेश
कुमार का नाम अींनकत था। शैनक्षक अनर्लेखोीं
की जाींच िेतु आयोनजत काउक्तन्सनलींग में 04
अभ्यनथदयोीं द्वारा प्रनतर्ाग निीीं नकया गया।
शैनक्षक अनर्लेखोीं की जाींच करिाये जाने िेतु
नदनाींक 01-09-2018 से 03-09-2018 तक
आयोनजत काउक्तन्सनलींग में उपक्तस्थत 259
अभ्यनथदयोीं को निद्यालयोीं में पदस्थ नकये जाने िेतु
सींबींनधत अभ्यनथदयोीं से निकल्प नलये जाने के
नननमत्त नदनाींक 04-09-2018 को चयन सनमनत
के समक्ष काउक्तन्सनलींग आयोनजत की गयी।

उक्त्त्त आयोनजत काउक्तन्सनलींग में 259
अभ्यनथदयोीं का चयन सनमनत के अनुमोदनापरान्त
ि निद्यालय में पदस्थ नकये जाने िेतु चयन
सनमनत के समक्ष सुश्री ज्योनत साह पुत्री श्री
जगदेि प्रसाद देिाती एिीं सुश्री उिदशी पुत्री श्री
राजेश कुमार द्वारा प्रस्तुत नकये गये निकल्प के
आधार पर कायादलय के आदेश सीं०/307/201819 नदनाींक 05.09.2018 द्वारा सुश्री ज्योनत साह
पुत्री श्री जगदेि प्रसाद देिाती की ननयुक्तक्त कन्या
प्राथनमक निद्यालय, रीिन निकास खण्ड, मौदिा
में एिीं सुश्री उिदशी पुत्री श्री राजेश कुमार की
ननयुक्तक्त कन्या प्राथनमक निद्यालय बेरी, निकास
खण्ड, कुरारा में सिायक अध्यापक पद पर ग्रेड
पे० 4200/- में ननतान्त अस्थायी रूप से एक िषद
की पररिीक्षा काल अिनध में की गयी थी नजनका
नाम कमशैंः 220 ि 226 पर अींनकत नकया गया
था। ननगदत नकये गये ननयुक्तक्त पत्र में इस बात का
स्पि उल्लेख कर नदया गया था नक यनद ननिष्य
में कोई अनर्लेख त्रुनटपूणद/ फजी पाया जाता िै
2 All. Urvashi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
881
तो सम्बक्तन्धत की, की गयी ननयुक्तक्त स्वत ननरस्त
समझी जायेगी।

शासनादेश सीं० 1498 (i)/68-4-2018
नदनाींक 05.10.2018 के नबन्दु (छ) में नदये गये
ननदेश के िम में सनचि, बेनसक नशक्षा पररषद
उ०प्र० प्रयागराज के स्तर से ननगदत पत्राींकैंः
बे०नश०प०/
8564-8642/2019-20
नदनाींक
16.08.2019 के द्वारा सिायक अध्यापक र्ती
परीक्षा 2018 के नदनाींक 13.08. 2018 को र्ोनषत
परीक्षफल में उत्तीणद 49 ऐसे अभ्यथी जो
पुनदमूल्ाींकन के पिात अनुत्तीणद र्ोनषत नकये
गये िै, जो ितदमान में सिायक अध्यापक पद पर
ननयुक्तक्त िै, को सेिा से पृथककरण नकये जाने
िेतु शासनादेश सीं०: 522/अरसठ-4-2019
नदनाींक 29.07.2019 में नदये गये ननदेशोीं के
अनुपालन में अनग्रम कायदिािी नकये जाने िेतु
ननदेश प्रदान नकये गये ि तथा सनचि, उ०प्र०
बेनसक नशक्षा पररषद, प्रयागराज के पत्राींक
बे०नश०प०/8756-89/2019-20
नदनाींक
19.08.2019 के द्वारा अनुत्तीणद 04 अभ्यनथदयोीं की
सूची उपलब्ध कराया गयी िै। सनचि, बेनसक
नशक्षा पररषद उ०प्र०, प्रयागराज के पत्र नदनाींक
19-08-2019 के साथ सलग्न अनुत्तीणद र्ोनषत
अभ्यथी की सूची में सुश्री ज्योनत साह पुत्री श्री
जगदेि प्रसाद देिाती एिीं सुश्री उिदशी पुत्री श्री
राजेश कुमार का नाम अींनकत ि , जोनक उक्तित्
जनपद में कायदरत िै।

अतैंः शासनादेश सीं० 1498 (i)/68-42018 नदनाींक 05.10.2018 के निन्दु (छ) में नदये
गये ननदेश के िम में सनचि, बेनसक नशक्षा
पररषद उ०प्र० प्रयागराज के स्तर से ननगदत
पत्राींकैंः
बे०नश०प०/
8564-8642/2019-20
नदनाींक
16.08.2019
एिीं
पत्राींक
िे०नश०प०/8756-89/2019-20
नदनाींक
19.08.2019 तथा शासनादेश सीं० 522 /
अरसठ-4-2019 नदनाींक 29.07.2019 के द्वारा
प्राप्त ननदेश के अनुपालन में उ०प्र० बेनसक
नशक्षा पररषद कमदचारी िगद ननयमािली 1973 में
अींनकत िृित खण्ड के नबन्दु (6) एिीं उ०प्र०
सरकारी
सेिक
(अनुशासन
एिीं
अपील
ननयमािली 1999) के नबन्दु (ख) दीर्द शाक्तस्तयाूँ
(4) में नननित प्रानिधानुसार तत्काल प्रर्ाि से
सुश्री ज्योनत साह पुत्री श्री जगदेि प्रसाद देिाती
सिायक अध्यानपका कन्या प्राथनमक निद्यालय,
रीिन निकास खण्ड, मौदिा एिीं सुश्री उिदशी
पुत्री श्री राजेश कुमार सिायक अध्यानपका कन्या
प्राथनमक निद्यालय, बेरी निकास खण्ड, कुरारा
जनपद-िमीरपुर में की गयी ननयुक्तक्त को तत्काल
प्रर्ाि से एतद् द्वारा ननरस्त करते हुये सेिा से
पृथक नकया जाता िै।"

3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Himanshu Singh,
Advocate and Sri P.K. Upadhyay, Sri
Umesh Prasad Singh, Sri Bashisth Narayan
Pandey,
Sri
Sanjeev
Kumar
Singh,
Advocates
for
different
petitioners,
submitted that above referred impugned
order does not discloses any reason(s) for
cancellation of appointments of respective
petitioners as well as Government Order
dated 05.10.2018 and subsequent Circular
dated 16.08.2019 would not provide any
power to concerned respondent to pass
impugned orders. On basis of pleadings
they submitted that respondents have no
power to re-evaluate the answer booklets of
petitioners as relevant rules and procedure
does not permit to do so. Learned counsel
have submitted that in absence of any
procedure prescribed, entire exercise to
recheck answer booklets was illegal and
impermissible, therefore, impugned orders
cannot survive.

4. Learned counsel further submitted
that
both
Government
Orders
dated
05.10.2018 and 16.08.2019, referred in
impugned orders, do not deal with issue of
re-examination of answer booklets, rather
details mentioned in said Government
Orders
would
indicate
that
exercise
882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
undertaken was contrary to procedure
prescribed. For reference both Government
Orders are reproduced hereinafter:

Government
Order
dated
05.10.2018

"प्रेषक,

चन्द्रशेखर,

निशेष सनचि,

उ०प्र० शासन।

सेिा में,

सनचि,

परीक्षा ननयामक प्रानधकारी

उ०प्र०, इलािाबाद

बेनसक नशक्षा अनुर्ाग लखनऊ,
नदनाींक 05 अक्टूबर, 2018

निषय- सिायक अध्यापक र्ती
परीक्षा - 2018 मे हुई अननयनमतताओीं की जाींच
के सम्बन्ध में।

मिोदय,

उपयुदक्त निषय के सम्बन्ध में मुझे यि
किने का ननदेश हुआ िै नक बेनसक नशक्षा
निर्ाग, उ०प्र० द्वारा 68500 पदोीं पर सिायक
अध्यापकोीं की सम्पन्न हुई र्ती परीक्षम-2018 र्ें
हुई अतनर्तर्ििमओं की जमंच हेिु श्री संजर्
आर० भूसरेड्डी की अध्यक्षिम र्ें गतिि िीन
सदस्यीर् उच्चस्तरीर् जमंच सतर्ति की जमंच
आख्यम
एवं
सतचव,
परीक्षम
तनर्मर्क
प्रमतर्कमरी द्वमरम सर्स्त 1,07,865 उत्तर
पुस्तस्तकमओं की करमर्ी गर्ी स्क्रूटनी के
आर्मर पर शमसन द्वमरम तनणार् तलर्े गर्े है,
तजसर्ें िमत्कमतलक प्रभमव से कमर्ावमही तकर्े
जमने की अपेक्षम की गर्ी है:-

(ख) राज्य निज्ञान नशक्षा सींस्थान के
07 अनधकाररयोीं नजन्हें र्ती परीक्षा का मूल्ाींकन
सुचारू रूप से सींचानलत करने की नजिेदारी
सौींपी गयी थी, के द्वारा अपने कमर्ा र्ें न केवल
लमपरवमही बरिी गर्ी, उत्तर पुस्तस्तकमओं कम
उनके द्वमरम पर्ावेक्षण नहीं तकर्म गर्म तजसके
कमरण उत्तर पुस्तस्तकमओं के र्ूल्मंकन र्ें
कतिपर् कतर्र्मं हुई एवं पररणमर् प्रभमतवि
हुआ। अिः इन समिों के तवरुद्ध तशतथल
पर्ावेक्षण एवं अपनम कमर्ा तनर्र्ों के आलोक
र्ें उत्तरदमतर्त्वपूणा ढंग से न करने के कमरण
इन सभी के तवरूद्ध अनुशमसतनक कमर्ावमही
तकर्े जमने कम तनणार् तलर्म गर्म है।

(ग) सिायक अध्यापक र्ती परीक्षा-
2018 का परीक्षा पररणाम तैयार करने िाली
एजेन्सी र्ैनेजर्ेन्ट कंटरोल तसस्टर् प्रमइवेट
तलतर्०, 29 तवर्मन सभम र्मगा, लखनऊ द्वमरम
परीक्षम पररणमर् घोतिि करने र्ें असमवर्मनी
बरिी
गर्ी
िथम
परीक्षम
पररणमर्
र्ें
तवसंगतिर्मं िथम गम्भीर त्रुतटर्मं भी की गर्ी।
एजेन्सी की लमपरवमही से त्रुतटर्मं होने के
कमरण घोतिि परीक्षम पररणमर् र्ें भी त्रुतटर्मं
हुई, तजसके तलए इस एजेन्सी को िमत्कमतलक
प्रभमव से ब्लैकतलस्ट करने की कमर्ावमही के
समथ-समथ सभी तवभमगों को इस आशर् की
सूचनम दी जमए तक भतवष्य र्ें वह इस एजेन्सी
से कमर्ा न करमर्े। इसके अनतररक्त यनद
एजेन्सी को कोई र्ुगतान नकया जाना अिशेष िै
तो यि र्ुगतान न नकया जाय एिीं अनुबन्ध की
शतों के अनुरूप एजेन्सी के निरूर्द् अन्य
दण्डात्मक कायदिािी र्ी सुनननित नकये जाने का
ननणदय नलया गया िै।

(र्) पमरदतशािम के दृतिगि र्ह
तनणार् भी तलर्म गर्म है तक कोई भी अभ्यथी
र्तद अपनी उत्तर पुस्तस्तकम कम पुनर्ूाल्मंकन
करनम
चमहिम
है
िो
उसे
तनःशुल्क
पुनर्ूाल्मंकन कम अवसर प्रदमन तकर्म जमर्।
पुनर्ूाल्मंकन के तलए तनःशुल्क आवेदन
करने हेिु तदनमंक 11.10.2018 से 20.10.2018
के र्ध्य ऑन-लमइन आवेदन प्रमप्त करने कम
तनणार् तलर्म गर्म है। कृपया इस सम्बन्ध में
एन०आई०सी० के साथ नमलकर आिेदन पत्र का
प्रारूप नडजाइन करते हुए नदनाींक 11.10.2018
2 All. Urvashi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
883
से 20.10.2018 के मध्य ऑन-लाइन आिेदन
प्राप्त करने की व्यिस्था करें तथा उससे पूिद
समाचार पत्रोीं के माध्यम से निज्ञापन प्रकानशत
करते हुए इसका समुनचत प्रचार-प्रसार करायें।

(च) जमंच सतर्ति को प्रमप्त कुल
725 तशकमर्िों र्ें से र्मत्र 285 अभ्यमतथार्ों की
तशकमर्िे ही र्ूल्मंकन र्ें अतनर्तर्ििम से
सम्बस्तिि थीं। जमंच सतर्ति द्वमरम उक्त कुल
285 तशकमर्िों के गहनिमपूवाक परीक्षण के
बमद र्ह पमर्म गर्म तक कुल 110 अभ्यमतथार्ों
के प्रकरणों र्ें परीक्षमफल र्ें कोई पररविान
नहीं पमर्म गर्म िथम 17 प्रकरण सहमर्क
अध्यमपक भिी परीक्षम से सम्बस्तिि नहीं थे।
इस प्रकमर कुल 285-(110+17)=158 प्रकरणों
र्ें भी शमसन द्वमरम स्वर्ं पुनर्ूाल्मंकन करमए
जमने कम तनणार् तलर्म गर्म है।

(छ)
कुल
1,07,865
उत्तर
पुस्तस्तकमओं के स्क्रूटनी र्ें कुल 343 प्रकरणों
र्ें तर्लमन करने पर अन्तर पमर्म गर्म, तजसर्ें
से
239
प्रकरणों
र्ें
परीक्षम
पररणमर्
अप्रभमतवि है शेि 51 प्रकरण ऐसे हैं तजनर्ें
जो अभ्यथी अभी अनुत्तीणा है िथम अनहा है वे
उत्तीणा िथम अहा हो जमिे है िथम 53 प्रकरण
ऐसे हैं, तजनर्ें जो अभ्यथी अभी उत्तीणा िथम
अहा हैं. वे अनहा िथम अनुत्तीणा हो जमिे हैं।
शमसन द्वमरम इन 53 उत्तर पुस्तस्तकमओं कम भी
पुनर्ूाल्मंकन करमए जमने कम तनणार् तलर्म
गर्म है िथम जो 51 अन्यथी अहा हो गर्े हैं उन्हें
कमउंसतलंग की अनुर्ति देिे हुए अतिर्
कमर्ावमही तकर्े जमने कम तनणार् तलर्म गर्म
है।

(ज) स्क्रूटनी र्ें तजन 343 प्रकरणों
र्ें अन्तर पमर्म गर्म है उन 343 उत्तर
पुस्तस्तकमओं
कम
र्ूल्मंकन
करने
वमले
परीक्षकों को कमरण बिमओ नोतटस तनगाि
करिे हुए उनके तवरुद्ध दण्डमत्मक कमर्ावमही
तकर्े जमने कम तनणार् भी तलर्म गर्म है।

अतएि कृपया तद्नुसार तत्काल
अग्रतर आिश्यक कायदिािी करते हुए कृत
कायदिािी से शासन को र्ी अिगत कराने का
कि करें।" (Emphasis supplied)

Government
Order
dated
16.08.2019

"प्रेषक,

सनचि,

उ०प्र० बेनसक नशक्षा पररषद,

प्रयागराज।

सेिा में,

नजला बेनसक नशक्षा अनधकारी,

समस्त जनपद, उत्तर प्रदेश।

पत्राींकैंः-
बे०नश०प०
/85648642/2019-20 नदनाींक- 16-08-19

निषयैंः- सिायक अध्यापक र्ती
परीक्षा-2018 पुनदमूल्ाींकन के सम्बन्ध में ननगदत
शासनादेश नदनाींक 05.10.2018 के नबन्दु सींख्या
(छ) में नदये गये ननदेश के अनुपालन के सम्बन्ध
में।

मिोदय,

कृपया उपयुदक्त निषयक सनचि
परीक्षा ननयामक प्रानधकारी उ०प्र० प्रयागराज के
पत्राींक गोप०/स०अ०म०प०-18/9414-17/201920 नदनाींक 01.08.2019 का सींदर्द ग्रिण करने
का कि करें नजसके द्वारा अिगत कराया गया िै
नक
शासनादेश
सींख्या-522/अरसठ-4-2019
नदनाींक
29
जुलाई
2019
द्वारा
सम्यक
निचारोपरान्त सहमर्क अध्यमपक भिी परीक्षम
2018 पुनर्ूाल्मंकन हेिु तनगाि शमसनमदेश
तदनमंक 05.10.2018 के तबन्दु संख्यम (छ) र्ें
तदर्े गर्े तनदेश के क्रर् र्ें पुनर्ूाल्मंकन
पश्चमि उनुत्तीणा पमर्े गर्े 49 अभ्यतथार्ों कम
परीक्षमफल घोतिि तकर्े जमने एवं उक्त 49
अभमतथार्ों, जो पूवा घोतिि परीक्षमफल तदनमंक
13.08.2018 के अनुसमर उत्तीणा एवं विार्मन
र्ें सहमर्क अध्यमपक के पद पर तनर्ुक्त है,
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
को सेवम से पृथककरण करमर्े जमने हेिु
तनदेश तदर्े गर्े है।

सनचि परीक्षा ननयामक प्रानधकारी
उ०प्र० प्रयागराज द्वारा अपने पत्र नदनाींक
01.08.2019 के साथ सिायक अध्यापक र्ती
परीक्षा 2018 के नदनाींक 13.08.2018 को र्ोनषत
परीक्षाफल में उत्तीणा 49 ऐसे अभ्यथी जो
पुनर्ूाल्मंकन के पश्चमि अनुत्तीणा घोतिि तकर्े
गर्े है, कम संशोतर्ि परीक्षमफल घोतिि करिे
हुए घोतिि परीक्षमफल की सूची (कुल 49
अन्यतथार्ों की सूची) जो विार्मन र्ें सहमर्क
अध्यमपक के पद पर तनर्ुक्त है, को सेवम से
पृथक्करण तकर्े जमने हेिु शमसनमदेश
तदनमंक 29.07.2019 र्ें तदर्े गर्े तनदेशों के
अनुपमलन हेिु संलग्न की गर्ी है।

उक्त के सम्बन्ध में आपको ननदेनशत
नकया
जाता
िै
नक
शासनादेश
नदनाींक
29.07.2019 का अक्षरशः अनुपमलन एवं
उ०प्र० बेतसक तशक्षम पररिद कर्ाचमरी वगा
तनर्र्मवली, 1973 व उत्तर प्रदेश सरकमरी
सेवक (अनुशमसन एवं अपील तनर्र्मर्ली
1999) र्ें दी गर्ी व्यवस्थमनुसमर कमर्ावमही
करनम सुतनतश्चि करें।

उक्त प्रकरण के सम्बन्ध में आप द्वारा
कैनिएट माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में दाक्तखल
नकया जाना सुनननित नकया जाय।" (Emphasis
supplied)

5. The above referred Government
Order and Circular have declared that:

(i)
Total
1,07,865
answer
booklets were examined.

(ii) On examination of 1,07,865
answer booklets difference was found in
343 answer booklets.

(iii) Out of above referred 343
booklets-

(a) despite difference result of
239 candidates was remained unaffected;

(b)
due
to
rechecking
51
candidates, who were earlier declared
failed, were found successful; and,

(c) remaining 53 candidates, who
were earlier declared successful, were
found failed on rechecking.

The petitioners before this court are
from above referred batch of 53 candidates.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners
have placed reliance on judgments passed
by this Court in Constable 979 Civil
Police Omveer Singh and others vs. State
of U.P. and others, Neutral Citation No. -
2016:AHC:9510-DB and Ram Naresh
Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and
others,
Neutral
Citation
No.
-
2017:AHC:185314. Relevant paragraphs
of
the
judgments
are
reproduced
hereinafter:

Omveer Singh (supra)

"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
nonappellant/intervenor Suresh Chandra 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.
2 All. Urvashi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
885

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 petitioner-appellant
Rajveer Singh Yadav and petitioner- non
appellant Suresh Chandra.

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.
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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 non-satisfactory 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." (Emphasis
supplied)

Ram Naresh Singh (supra)

"93. Both in the case of the
Rajesh Kumar (supra) and in the case of
Vikas Pratap Singh (supra) almost on
similar facts, the Supreme Court has held
that candidates, who were selected earlier
due to erroneous decision of the Selection
Board and who continued to work for
sometime on the said post, could not be
allowed to suffer because of the error on
the part of the Selection Board. At the
same time, no candidate could be allowed
to earn an undeserved advantage over
others by an application of a erroneous
Answer Key.

94. In balancing the equities the
Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that
candidates later on selected by application
of rectified Answer Key were to be given
appointment and such candidates would
earn their seniority from the date the
wrongly selected candidates were first
appointed in accordance with their merit
position. The appointments of such
correctly
selected
candidates
after
reevaluation of their Answer Scripts
should relate back to the date when
wrongly selected candidates were first
appointed with continuity of service to
them for the purpose of seniority, but
without
any
back
wages
or
other
incidental benefits.

95. Such candidates, who could
not make a grade after reevaluation, i.e.
candidates like the petitioners herein
should not be ousted from service, but
should figure at the bottom of the list of the
selected candidates based on the first
selection in terms of the advertisement
issued,
and
also
all
such
selected
candidates,
whose
results
had
been
announced after the second selection
pursuant to a later advertisement.

96. This Court in respectful
deference to the observations made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajesh Kumar (supra) and in the case of
Vikas Pratap Singh (supra) and in Civil
Appeal No. 367 of 2017 (Ran Vijay Singh
and others vs State of U.P. and others) may
also issue such directions for the case of
writ petitioners herein.

97. The writ petitioners therefore
cannot be ousted from service altogether
and shall be kept at the bottom of the
rectified
Select
List
issued
for
Advertisement No. 1 of 2010, and also any
2 All. Urvashi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
887
other Select List on the basis of any later
advertisement issued by the Selection
Board, selection on the basis of which has
been completed and recommendations
made for appointment. The petitioners
shall be offered fresh appointments on the
posts of Hindi Teachers L.T. Grade in
Institution, which have determined such
vacancies in direct recruitment quota and
intimated them to the District Inspector of
School concerned and further notified to
the
Selection
Board, but
on
which
vacancies selection has not been advertised
or finalized by the Selection Board till date.
 98.
If
need
be
then
supernumerary posts be created for the
petitioners as directed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 367 of
2017 for similarly situated appellants
therein, who were ousted as a consequence
of rectification of result of selection held
for Trained Graduate Grade Teachers in
Advertisement No. 1 of 2009 of the
Selection Board." (Emphasis supplied)

7. Per contra, Sri Ashish Kumar
Nagvanshi,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing Counsel, Sri Manvendra Dixit, Sri
Brijesh Narayan Srivastava, Sri L.M. Singh
and Sri Suresh Srivastava, learned Standing
Counsel for State-Respondents and Sri
Chandra Shekhar Singh, Sri Akhilesh
Kumar Sharma, Sri Sanjay Singh, Sri
Ashish Kumar Singh, Sri Shivendra Singh
Bhadauria and Sri Shashi Prakash Singh,
Advocates appearing for respective District
District Basic Education Officers, have
placed reliance on counter affidavit and
orders passed by this Court during hearing
that after re-evaluation it was found that
despite petitioners got very less marks, as
mentioned in their respective answer
booklets, in tabulation chart they were
granted much more marks. They referred
the tabulation chart annexed alongwith
counter affidavit and scanned copy of the
same is pasted hereinafter:

8. Learned counsel also submitted that
on basis of complaints marks given on
answer booklets were compared with
tabulation chart and 343 cases were found
where there was difference between two.
All 343 booklets were re-examined and
finally 53 cases were detected where there
was
huge
different
and
merit
was
compromised.
These
candidates
were
wrongly
selected,
therefore,
their
appointments were cancelled. Original
888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
booklets were summoned by this court and
above discrepancies were found. The
petitioners were allowed to get photocopy
of booklets also. On facts, judgments cited
by petitioners are distinguishable.

9. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the material available on
record.

10.

Before
adverting
to rival
submissions, it would be relevant to quote
relevant orders passed by this Court during
hearing as under:

Order dated 07.11.2019

"Heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mushir
Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned standing counsel for respondent
Nos. 1, 2 & 4 and Sri Nand Kishore Singh,
learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that petitioner had appeared in
Assistant
Teacher
Recruitment
Examination- 2018 in which he was
declared successful and accordingly he was
appointed. Pursuant to that, he has
submitted his joining but all of sudden,
without providing opportunity of hearing,
impugned order dated 07.09.2019 has been
passed by which his services were
terminated on the ground that after reevaluation, he was awarded lesser marks
than
the
cut-off-marks
required
for
appointment. It is next submitted that once
petitioner has joined his services, he can
only be terminated in accordance with
service rules applicable in the case of
petitioner.

Put up this case on 15.11.2019 in
the additional cause list.

Learned standing counsel is
directed to produce original answer book,
model
answer
key
as
well
as
records/complaints which leads to reevaluation of answer book of petitioner on
the next date fixed.

Learned standing counsel as well
as Sri Nand Kishore Singh, learned counsel
for respondent Nos. 3 & 5 shall also inform
the Court that whether any notice has been
given to the petitioner or not and in case
any such notice is given, they shall also
produce the copy of the same."

Order dated 15.11.2019

"Pursuant to order of this Court
dated
7.11.2019,
learned
Standing
Counsel has produced two sealed cover
envelops, one sealed cover envelop is
having 14 answer books and other sealed
cover envelop is having photostat copy of
tabulation chart. The same are retained in
the custody of Registrar General which
shall be produced in the Court tomorrow
i.e. 16.11.2019 at 10.00 A.M.

Put up tomorrow i.e. 16.11.2019
in the additional cause list alongwith
connected matters."

Order dated 16.11.2019

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned standing counsel for
respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 and Sri Nand
Kishore
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
respondent Nos. 3 & 5.

Brief facts of the case are that
earlier petitioner along with many other
candidates had appeared in Assistant
Teacher Recruitment Examination-2018
and declared successful. Ultimately they
have been given appointment. Pursuant to
the
appointment
letters,
they
have
submitted their joining and working at the
place of their posting. Now by impugned
order dated 16.08.2019, her services has
been terminated and in the impugned
order, it is mentioned that after receiving
some
complaints,
re-evaluation
was
conducted and 49 candidates including
petitioner was found fail as they have not
2 All. Urvashi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
889
obtained minimum cut off marks and due to
which her services was terminated.Similar
orders of termination have also been
passed in the matter of 48 candidates.

The main argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner was that she had
never applied for revaluation, therefore,
her answer book cannot be revaluated and
further no opportunity was given to her
prior to passing the impugned order.

This Court vide order dated
07.11.2019
directed
learned
standing
counsel to produce original answer book,
model
answer
key
as
well
as
records/complaints which leads to reevaluation of answer book of petitioner.

Pursuant
to
that,
original
answer book of 14 candidates including
petitioner out of 49 candidates along with
photocopy of tabulation chart having
marks of petitioner as well as many other
candidates have been produced before the
Court. Letter dated 01.08.2019 has also
been produced before the Court having
the list of all such 49 candidates along
with chart of their marks after first
evaluation, revaluation and also marks
mentioned in tabulation chart upon which
they have been given appointment. This
letter was sent to Secretary, Board of Basic
Education, U.P. Prayagraj by Secretary,
Examination
Regulatory
Authority,
Prayagraj. Photocopy of tabulation chart
and letter dated 01.08.2019 along with
detail chart of 49 candidates be taken on
record.

Mr. Anil Bhushan Chaturvedi,
Secretary,
Examination
Regulatory
Authority is also present before this Court
for proper assistance.

By the perusal of 14 answer
books as well as tabulation chart annexed
along with letter dated 01.08.2019, it is
found that after re-evaluation, either
marks
of the
petitioner
and
other
candidates have been increased or there is
no change in their marks, but most
shocking and surprising thing is that
tabulation
chart
is
having
entirely
different marks which is much higher
than the marks given on the answer books
after first evaluation and revaluation.

Petitioner before this Court had
earlier obtained 53 marks and after reevaluation she has been awarded 54
marks whereas in the tabulation charge,
she has been given 62 marks and upon
that she has been given appointment on
the post of Assistant Teacher.

The position is same about all
other
48
candidates
mentioned
in
tabulation chart annexed along with letter
dated 01.08.2019. For example, another
candidate namely Divya Agrahari who is
also petitioner in other petition had been
awarded 18 marks and after revaluation
she has been awarded 19 marks but in the
tabulation chart, she has been given 81
marks, Basant Kumar Yadav had been
awarded 8 marks and after revaluation, he
has been awarded 9 marks, but in
tabulation chart, he has been given 75
marks, M.D. Ejahar had been awarded 8
marks and after revaluation, he has been
again awarded 8 marks, but in tabulation
chart, he has been given 68 marks and
Gulab Devi had been awarded 4 marks
and after revaluation, she has also been
again awarded 4 marks, but in tabulation
chart, she has been given 84 marks. Other
candidates are also having the same
factual position.

On being confronted by the
Court, Mr. Anil Bhushan Chaturvedi,
Secretary,
Examination
Regulatory
Authority has informed the Court that
appointments are given to the candidates
on the basis of marks mentioned in
tabulation chart, which is also shown in
chart annexed along with letter dated
890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
01.08.2019. He further informed that in all
these matters, show cause notice has been
issued to concerned teachers, who had
prepared the tabulation chart, but no F.I.R.
has been lodged in this matter.

After perusing the 14 answer
books, tabulation chart as well as chart
annexed
along
with
letter
dated
01.08.2019, it is very much clear that
fraud was played at very large scale and it
is a fit case to lodge FIR, therefore,
Examination
Regulatory
Authority,
Prayagraj is directed to lodge FIR in this
matter.
 Learned standing counsel for
respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 and Sri Nand
Kishore
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
respondent Nos. 3 & 5 pray for and are
granted two weeks time to file counter
affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be
filed within one week thereafter.

List this case on 11.12.2019 in
top three cases along with connected
matters.

Original answer books of 14
candidates is returned to Mr. Anil
Bhushan
Chaturvedi,
Secretary,
Examination Regulatory Authority. He is
directed to produce answer books of all 49
candidates including these 14 answer
books and also copy of F.I.R. lodged in
this matter on the next date fixed."

Order dated 12.12.2019

"Counter affidavit filed on behalf
of respondent nos. 1 and 4 is taken on
record.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior
Advocate submitted that the appointment
of the petitioners, in this petition and
other connected petitions, have been
cancelled
on
the
ground
that
in
revaluation
their
marks
have
been
reduced, due to which, they did not
secure minimum qualifying marks and as
such,
their
appointments
have
been
cancelled.

This Court passed an order on
16.11.2019 directing the respondents to
produce answer books of all the 49
candidates. Pursuant to the direction of this
Court dated 16.11.2019, Sri R.P. Dubey,
learned Standing Counsel submitted that
answer books of all the 49 candidates have
been brought to the Court.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior
Advocate contended that since there are
allegations against the petitioners that the
marks
have
been
tempered
in
the
examination copy, therefore, the petitioners
have right to see the examination copies.
He submits that there is provision to supply
scanned copy of answer books, therefore,
respondents may be directed to supply the
photo-copy of the answer-books to the
counsel of each candidates.

Sri
R.P.
Dubey,
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on
instructions from Sri Prem Sanker Singh,
Deputy Registrar submitted that the
respondents
have
no
objection
in
supplying the photo-copies of the answerbooks to the counsel of each candidates.

In view of the statement of Sri
R.P. Dubey, learned Chief Standing
Counsel,
this
Court
directs
the
respondents to supply the photo-copies of
the answer books to the counsel of
candidates, who are desirous to obtain it.

In this regard, the petitioners are
directed to supply the list of candidates,
who are desirous of obtaining the photocopies of the answer books, with details by
2:00 pm on 13.12.2019 in the Office of the
Chief Standing Counsel which may be
collected
by
representatives
of
the
Department for doing needful.

It is further provided that the
counsels of the candidates whose name
figures in the list of candidate for
2 All. Urvashi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
891
obtaining photo-copies of examination,
may approach in the Chamber of Chief
Standing Counsel to collect the same from
the representatives of the Department on
16.12.2019 between 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm

Put up this case on 18.12.2019 in
the additional cause list."

Order dated 10.01.2020

"Sri
Amit
Saxena,
learned
Senior Counsel assisted by by Saurabh
Singh, for the petitioner submits that
pursuant to the order of this Court dated
12.12.2019, scanned copy has been
supplied
to
the
petitioner
by
the
respondents and perusal of the scanned
copy reflects that there is no tampering by
the petitioner in the copy.

He submits that the observation
made by this Court in its order dated
16.11.2019 that "fraud was played at very
large scale" may be modified.

Since the petitioner is seeking
modification of the order dated 16.11.2019
passed by this Court, therefore, in view of
the said fact, let the record of this case be
placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice for
necessary orders."

Order dated 16.08.2021

"Civil
Misc.
Modification
Application No. 5 of 2020

Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned
senior counsel assisted by Sri Shivendu
Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief Standing
Counsel on behalf of State.

Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that while passing the order dated
16.11.19, Court has made an observation
and further directed to file FIR. In fact,
Court has observed that fraud was played
at very large scale and it is a fit case for
lodging for FIR, therefore, Investigating
Officer is bound with the observation made
by the Court and cannot investigate the
matter on its own. Court may also please to
issue necessary direction to I.O. to carry
out investigation without being influenced
with the observation made by the Court
vide order dated 16.11.2019.

I have considered the submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Paragraph in question for which
modification application is filed is as
follows;

"After perusing the 14 answer
books, tabulation chart as well as chart
annexed
along
with
letter
dated
01.08.2019, it is very much clear that
fraud was played at very large scale and it
is a fit case to lodge FIR, therefore,
Examination
Regulatory
Authority,
Prayagraj is directed to lodge FIR in this
matter."

From the perusal of above noted
paragraph, contention of learned senior
counsel for the applicant appears to be
correct, therefore, I.O. is given liberty to
carry out investigation on the basis of
evidences and witnesses available to him
without
being
influenced
with
the
observation made by the Court in the
above noted paragraph.

Accordingly,
modification
application is allowed and order dated
16.11.2019 is modified to that extent only.