Dismissed

Shakti Kumar Mishra v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2018SPLA/670/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal dismissed. The Apex Court held that the appellant could not challenge the exam selection process due to fatal delay in raising objections regarding incorrect questions after the final result was declared in 2016, despite the Commission rectifying errors later.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; appellant's challenge to the selection process barred due to delay.

Shakti Kumar Mishra Vs State of Up and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 670 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Shakti Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Shri Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kailash Singh Kushwaha

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 2nd July, 2018 passed by learned single Bench in Writ-A No.6814 of 2014 titled as Shakti Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others.

¶6

The petitioner while undertaking the selection in question, failed to test where several multiple choice questions were asked some of the questions asked by the respondent were however not correct or the answers treated as correct by the Commission was not correct answer.

¶7

On perusal of the fact stated in petition for writ, counter affidavit and the documents on record thereto, it is apparent that the test concern was conducted in the year 2015 and the result of the preliminary examination was declared on 8th November, 2015. A master answer key was also uploaded on the website of the Commission on 27th September, 2015. The result of the examination was declared on 16th August, 2016. The appellantpetitioner never raised any objection about correctness of the question asked for and the reply and the answers given in the master key.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioner that certain other persons also raised objections about the questions sought to be objected by the appellant-petitioner and as such the non-submission of objections by the appellant-petitioner is absolutely nonconsequential.

¶9

We do not find any merit in the argument advanced.

¶10

Suffice to mention that the Commission after receiving objections from other persons obtained expert report and found that questions no.65 and 68 in A series were not correct. Necessary steps as a consequence to the recommendations were taken and the final select list was declared on 16th August, 2016. The appellant-petitioner even then do not chose to agitate

¶11

his cause. He preferred instant petition only in the year 2017 that is after completion of the process of selection. The appellant-petitioner if on any objection with regard to the questions asked, then he should have agitate his cause immediately on declaration of master key or at least after declaration of final result on 16th August, 2016. The delay occurred in the instant matter is fatal and in result the appeal is dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 30.7.2018 Bhaskar

¶13

(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)

Shakti Kumar Mishra v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakti Kumar Mishra v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M Fisheries Cooperative Society Limited Vs State of U P and 7 Others

Asif Ali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Magru Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Committee of Management Sri Mahauru Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Ravindra Nath Kaushal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jai Chandra Singh Vs Regional Joint Director of Education and 3 Others