Disposed

Amod Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Other

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2018WRIA/25253/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a recruitment examination without conducting a fresh re-evaluation of the answer sheet. Relying on a prior order allowing re-evaluation for all candidates, the Court directed the Examination Regulatory Authority to consider the petitioner's claim and disposed of the petition on those terms.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of on the directions contained in the judgment dated 30 October 2018, which mandated re-evaluation of answer sheets.

Amod Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Other — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25253 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Amod Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Other Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Yadav,Daya Shanker Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶6

The grievance of the petitioner that having obtained scanned copy of the answer-sheet of the Recruitment Examination-2018 for the post of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools run by Board of Basic Education it has come to detected that though answers of several questions were correct but were marked as incorrect.

¶7

It is, therefore, contended that the entire answer-sheet of the petitioner deserves to be re-evaluated / re-examined in the light of the Government Order dated 5th October 2018.

¶8

The controversy with regard to the re-evaluation / reexamination in respect of the answer-sheet of the candidates in the Assistant Teachers Recruitment Examination-2018 even after the expiry of the date prescribed, has come for consideration by this Court in Writ-A No.18235 of 2018 (Aniruddh Narayan Shukla and 118 Others v. State of UP and 3 Others) and this Court vide its final judgment and order dated 30 October 2018 has made following observations and directions :-

¶9

"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 reevaluation, 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.

¶10

The Secretary of the Examination Regulatory Authority states that the task of re-evaluation would be completed expeditiously, preferably, within a

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

No order is passed as to costs."

¶14

Learned counsel for the parties agree that this writ petition can also be disposed of in terms of the directions as contained in the order passed in the case of Aniruddh Narain Shukla (supra) .

¶15

In view of the above, the Secretary of the Examination Regulatory Authority the fourth respondent is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for re-evaluation / reexamination also in the light of the directions as contained in the judgement dated 30 October 2018 referred to herein above.

¶16

Thus, this writ petition also stands disposed of in terms of the judgement of Aniruddh Narain Shukla (supra).

¶17

Order Date :- 30.11.2018 IrfanUddin

Amod Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amod Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Lajjawati Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sandeep Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Priyanka Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M Madarsa Jamiya Islamiya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shiv Muni Ram and 16 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

C/M Smt. Dulhin Rajdhari Kuwari Kanya Junior High School and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others