Disposed

Bhanu Singh Parihar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2018WRIA/26586/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 4th respondent to consider the petitioner's claim for re-evaluation and name correction in accordance with directions issued in a connected petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Secretary of Examination Regulatory Authority to consider the petitioner's claims for re-evaluation and name correction based on the earlier judgment.

Bhanu Singh Parihar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26586 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Bhanu Singh Parihar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Shikher Trivedi

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4 and Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

The controversy with regard to the re-evaluation / re-examination 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 in the case of Aniruddh Narayan Shukla and 118 Others v. State of UP and 3 Others and this Court vide its final judgment and order dated 30th October, 2018 has made following observations and directions :-

¶10

" 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

¶11

advised not to do so. Since the task of reevaluation 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

No order is passed as to costs. "

¶15

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 Narayan Shukla (supra) .

¶16

In view of the above, the 4th respondent, namely, the Secretary of the Examination Regulatory Authority is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner also for re-evaluation/ reexamination in the light of the directions as contained in the judgment dated 30th October, 2018 referred to hereinabove.

¶17

The petitioner has also prayed for correction of his name in the result as Bhanu instead of Shanu for which he has already represented in February, 2018.

¶18

Let the matter be also examined from this angle by the competent authority i.e. respondent no. 4 within aforesaid period

¶19

prescribed for.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 14.12.2018 P Kesari

Bhanu Singh Parihar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanu Singh Parihar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Rajani Mittal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Khusdil Alam and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Abhinay Gangwar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Archana Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd. Ajamal Anasri Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others