Petitioner challenged answer-sheet evaluation errors in Assistant Teacher recruitment. Court directed respondent authority to consider petitioner's claim for re-evaluation under directions in a related judgment before disposing of the petition.
Petitioner directed to be included for re-evaluation; petition disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26429 of 2018
Petitioner :- Abhinay Gangwar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Lavlesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
"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.
The Secretary of the Examination Regulatory Authority states that the task of re-evaluation 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."
Order Date :- 13.12.2018 Sanjeev
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to another opportunity for re-evaluation of his answer-sheet under the direction in another writ petition?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Aniruddh Narayan Shukla and 118 Others v. State of UP and 3 OthersFollowed¶8
Writ-A No.18235 of 2018 in the case of Aniruddh Narayan Shukla and 118 Others v. State of UP and 3 Others
Abhinay Gangwar
State Of U.P.
Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
