Dismissed

Damyanti v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2021WRIA/478/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging the re-evaluation result of the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2018. The High Court found no error in the re-evaluation and held that the petitioner's answers did not merit relaxation of a hyper-technical approach.

What did the court decide?

Discontinuation of the writ petition challenging the re-evaluation result of the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2018.

Damyanti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 478 of 2021 Petitioner :- Damyanti Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Pandey,Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the all the respondents.

¶4

By means of the present petition, the petitioner herein is challenging the re-evaluation result of the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2018 declared on 22.10.2019. In two rounds of litigation initiated by the candidate, certain other directions were issued by this Court for re-evaluation of the answer books taking non-hyper technical approach, considering the answers given by the candidates in correct perspective. Minor variations in the answers given by the candidates were required to be ignored.

¶5

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had duly applied for re-evaluation of the answer books raising objections with regard to question nos. 12, 17, 53, 71, 107, 122 & 147 of Booklet 'B'.

¶6

It is contended that the answers given by the petitioners are close to the key answers displayed by the respondents. Marks for the aforesaid questions are required to be assigned to the petition treating the answer given by him as correct.

¶7

Having perused the averments made in para '27' of the writ petition, wherein a tabulation chart has been given narrating the key answers and the answers given by the petitioners, this Court does not find any error in the re-evaluation result.

¶8

The objection raised by the petitioner that hyper technical view has been adopted while evaluating the question no.17 of question Booklet 'B', which is the same as of question no.99 of question Booklet 'A', is not substantiated from the perusal of the answer given by the petitioner.

¶9

No merit is found in the writ petition.

¶10

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶11

Order Date :- 19.1.2021 P Kesari

¶12

Digitally signed by Justice Sunita Agarwal Date: 2021.01.20 10:41:49 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Damyanti v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Damyanti v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

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

Mohan Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajeet Kumar Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Shishupal Kumar Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Smt. Kamlesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krishanveer Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Smt. Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others