Partly allowed

Abhijeet Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2020WRIA/113/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed the petitioner's writ petition challenging a three-year debarment. It set aside the debarment order pending STF investigation into alleged OMR sheet mismatches, directing the State to declare results if the petitioner is given a clean chit.

What did the court decide?

Portion of FIR debarring the petitioner from future examinations for 3 years set aside; copies of OMR sheets returned to Commission.

Abhijeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 113 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Abhijeet Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Sri Pranav Ojha, learned Addl. CSC for respondent no. 1.

¶6

Petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming issuance of appropriate writ directing respondent no. 2 to send both the OMR Answer Sheets for inspection to appropriate Laboratory or before any other appropriate authority. He has also prayed for issuance of any other writ, which Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 2 had issued an advertisement dated 30.5.2018 inviting applications for examination of Sammilit Gram Panchyat Adhikari, Gram Vikas Adhikari and Samaj Kalyan Paryavekshak. Petitioner was one of the candidates who had applied and appeared in the examination under general category.

¶8

Petitioner's contention is that respondent no. 2 has registered an FIR registering Case Crime No. 0584 of 2019 under sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A IPC at Police Station Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow to the effect that persons named in the FIR alongwith certain other persons, are amongst those were discrepancies in the OMR Sheets have been detected when scores were matched from the tabulation of original OMR with the one which was found on the carbon copy of the OMR i.e. preserved copies of the OMR sheets, in the Treasury.

¶9

Learned counsel submits that OMR sheets were in 3 copies, original and the copies preserved in the treasury i.e. original and copy no. 1 are deposited with the examiner, whereas third copy is permitted to be taken by a candidate appearing in the examination. It is submitted that on the basis of alleged mismatch between the original OMR sheet and the treasury copy, alleged FIR has been lodged and thereafter decision has been taken by the respondent no. 2 to debar the petitioner from appearing in any examination to be conducted by

¶10

¶11

respondent no. 2 for a period of 3 years. It is submitted that in this backdrop Hon'ble coordinate Bench of this Court was gracious enough to direct the respondent no. 2 to submit original OMR sheets alongwith treasury copy i.e. carbon copy, vide order dated 6.2.2020.

¶12

Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 in his turn submits that authorities of the State in consultation with respondent no. 2 have already handed over investigation in the matter to the Special Task Force (STF) for further investigation. However, in compliance of the order of the Court dated 6.2.2020, he has produced copy of original OMR sheets alongwith carbon copy of the same.

¶13

On perusal of the original OMR sheets and carbon copy, it is evident that there is no glaring mismatch in the two so to prima facie attract any criminal liability of this particular petitioner. Matter is still under investigation, therefore, without commencing on the extent of criminal liability of the petitioner which can be determined only on completion of the investigation and realizing the limitations available in exercise of writ jurisdiction, this court is of the opinion that when prima facie subject matter of the FIR in regard to the petitioner appears to be not substantiated with the original OMR sheets and its carbon copy produced in a close cover by Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, therefore, it will be appropriate to direct Sri Awasthi to call for the instructions in this regard.

¶14

With view to facilitate Sri Awasthi to call for written instructions from respondent no. 2, put up this matter at 2:30 pm.

¶15

2:30 PM : Matter taken up at 2:30 pm in presence of learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

Sri Awasthi has produced written communication sent by the Secretary of respondent no. 2 namely Sri Ashutosh Mohan Agnihotri in which it is mentioned that there is no difference in the score contained in the original OMR sheet and the carbon copy of the OMR preserved in the Treasury, but STF investigation is going on. Therefore, as per the out come of the STF investigation, if, Government Orders for, declaration of examination results of the candidates, then result of the petitioner may be declared alongwith other candidates and further proceedings will be undertaken on the basis of merit. This communication dated 1.12.2020 is taken on record. Bench Secretary is directed to take necessary steps in this regard.

¶17

¶18

For ready reference above instructions are reproduced herein under: “egksn;]

¶19

d`i;k ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn ds le{k fopkjk/khu ;kfpdk la0&fjV , 113@2020] vfHkthr flag cuke m0 iz0 jkT; o vU; ds lEcU/k esa vk;ksx }kjk izsf"kr vfHkdFku fnukad 26-11-2020 dk lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsaA

¶20

mDr ;kfpdk ds lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g Hkh dgus dk funs’k gqvk gS fd ;kph ds ewy vks0,e0vkj0 ,oa dks"kkxkj esa jf{kr vks0,e0vkj0 izfr ds Ldksj esa dksbZ fHkUurk ugha gSA orZeku esa bl ijh{kk dh ,l0vkbZ0Vh0 tkap izpfyr gSA bl foKkiu ls vkPNkfnr ,l0vkbZ0Vh0 dh izpfyr tkap ds fu"d"kksZa ds vk/kkj ij ;fn ’kklu }kjk iz’uxr ijh{kk ds ifj.kke ds vk/kkj ij p;u fd;s tkus gsrq vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gS rks ml n’kk esa vU; ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa ds lkFk&lkFk ;kph ds ifj.kke ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa esfjV ds vk/kkj ij vxzsrj dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA

¶21

d`i;k mijksDrkuqlkj ek0 U;k;ky; dks voxr djkrs gq;s ;kfpdk fuLrkfjr djkus dk d"V djsaA

¶22

Hkonh;]

¶23

¼vk’kqrks"k eksgu vfXugks=h½

¶24

lfpoA”

¶25

I have perused the original OMR answer sheet as well as its carbon copy, produced by Sri Awasthi and is in prima facie agreement with the instructions sent by the Secretary of respondent no. 2. Both the copies of OMR sheets i.e. one in original and its carbon copy are returned in sealed cover to Sri Awasthi for depositing the same with the Commission.

¶26

After hearing counsel for the parties, going through the record, and in the light of the above reproduced instructions, it is apparent that there is no basis for debarring the present petitioner from undertaking any future examinations to be conducted by the Commission pending investigation in the hands of STF, which may take sometime.

¶27

In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, this Court is of the view that, that portion of the FIR which debars the present petitioner from appearing in any future examination to be conducted by respondent no. 2 for a period of 3 years deserves to be set aside and

¶28

¶29

is set aside specifically in relation to the petitioner viz Abhijeet Singh only. It is made clear that STF investigation shall go on and on the basis of the investigation report, if, culpability of the petitioner is found, then respondent will be free to take appropriate action as may be permissible under law.

¶30

This matter is being disposed of as pirma facie culpability of the petitioner is admittedly not established as is evident from the instructions received from the Commission i.e. respondent no. 2. Respondents will be free to take appropriate action i.e. of declaring the result in future if petitioner is given clean chit in STF investigation on future date. In above terms, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

Order Date :- 1.12.2020 S.K.S.

Abhijeet Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhijeet Singh v. State of U.P. 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

Rajendra Singh Vs Smt. Anita

Bhola Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Aman Chaudhary Vs Smt. Ambika Chaudhary

ram mohan yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 others

Deepak Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Santosh Kumar and 2 Others Vs Union of India and 2 Others