Dismissed

Yatendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Oct 2020WRIA/2229/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for issuance of an attested OMR sheet. The Court dismissed the petition, observing that the petitioner scored below the cut-off marks due to negative marking and that the petition was based on conjectures without challenging the cut-off or alleging mistake in the sheet.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's petition for issuance of attested OMR sheet was dismissed.

Yatendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2229 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Yatendra Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar,Mohd. Afzal Ansari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Mohd. Afzal Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vishal Singh learned standing counsel for State.

¶6

Petitioner has filed this petition for issuance of order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to provide attested photo copy of OMR sheet bearing roll no.1122040322.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement was published on 16.11.2018 to fill up vacancies in the cadre of Constable (Civil Police) and PAC through direct recruitment. Petitioner had applied for one of the post under OBC category.

¶8

Petitioner participated in the written examination. Petitioner's case is that he was given a test booklet of D-10 series and petitioner had solved all the questions correctly. He was hopeful of success. Answer key was uploaded over the website of the department and as per petitioner's estimation he should have scored 182 marks. Petitioner admits that he had solved 91 questions correctly and each correct answer carried two marks whereas five marks were to be deducted for each wrong answer.

¶9

After having said this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he should have been awarded 182 marks in the written examination but he has been declared to be not qualified on the ground that he has secured less than the cut-off marks i.e., 172.3272.

¶10

It is submitted that under similar facts and

¶11

circumstances, Chairman U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission has been directed to show OMR sheet to the petitioners within 10 days. These directions are contained in the order dated 17.01.2020 passed in

¶12

Writ 'A' No.850 of 2020 Indra Jeet and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and another.

¶13

Learned standing counsel for State in his turn submits that order dated 17.01.2020 passed in Writ 'A' No.850 of 2020 is a matter of selection of Village Development Officer where issuance of writ was sought to re-evaluate the OMR sheet of the petitioner. It is submitted that present case is different and distinguishable. It is pointed out that earlier Writ 'A' No.20677 of 2019 was dismissed vide order dated 17.12.2019 with liberty to file fresh petition on the same cause of action.

¶14

It is also pointed out there after petitioner had filed another Writ 'A' No.557 of 2020 which too has been dismissed as withdrawn. Thus this is third round of litigation and petitioner is not coming up with correct facts.

¶15

It is submitted that though petitioner has admitted in para 7 of the writ petition, there was negative marking and as per the answer key issued by respondent no.2 petitioner solved 91 correct questions out of 150 questions but has not mentioned as to how many questions were left blank by the petitioner or have been wrongly attempted by the petitioner.

¶16

In view of such facts, petitioner's hope of securing 172.3272 or more marks is not made out from the face of the record.

¶17

After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for parties and going through the records, it is evident from Annexure-7 that the cut-off marks for other backward class has been fixed at 172.3272 by the respondent no.2. There is no challenge to these cut-off marks.

¶18

Admittedly, there being provision for negative marking

¶19

and petitioner admitting that he had only ticked 91 correct answers, even by extension of common sense petitioner could not have secured marks above cut-off marks as have been prescribed by the respondent no.2, as admitted by the scheme of examination incorporates negative marking.

¶20

The law laid down in case of Union Public Service Commission vs. Angnesh Kumar as reported in (2018) 4 SCC 530 espouses the circumstances delineating exemptions from giving information.

¶21

In the present case, since petitioner himself has failed to make a prima facie case of being a boarder line case inviting indulgence of the court, especially when petitioner has not mentioned as to whether he had left other questions blank or as to how many questions were attempted by him which do not tally with the answer key issued by respondent no.2, petitioner is groping in dark. On facts decision in case Writ 'A' No.850 of 2020 is distinguishable. There is no mention of negative marking. In the present case there is no allegation of tempering with the OMR sheet. Therefore, the petition is deserves to be dismissed. In fact such petition merely on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and also lacking disclosure of true and complete facts deserves to be dismissed and is, therefore, dismissed.

¶22

No order as to costs. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 20.10.2020

¶23

Yatendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yatendra Kumar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Committee of Management Swami Shivendrapuri Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nitish Dubey Vs Professor Rakesh Bhatnagar, Vice-Chancellor and Another

Kshetra Pal Vs Anup Kumar, Chief Executive Officerand Another

Yadav Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surendra Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Virendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others