The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a rejected objection to an answer key. The court held that the petitioner's objection, filed after the final result was declared, was wholly belated. Absent patent illegality, the court refused to exercise discretion to compel a merit review that would disturb the declared result.
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. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3010 of 2022
Petitioner :- Priti Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Hariom Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.S.Parihar
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Supplementary counter affidavit filed today by Sri A.K.S. Parihar is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit thereto.
Accordingly, the matter is being heard.
Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi along with Sri Hariom Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the Board and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Present writ petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 13th January, 2022 passed by U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). By that order, the Board has rejected the objection filed by the petitioner to answer response 'A' to Question No. 27 of Booklet Series 'A'.
The petitioner had applied for selection on the post of Post Graduate Teacher (Hindi) pursuant to Advertisement No. 2 of 2021 issued by the Board. In para-4 of the rejoinder affidavit filed earlier, the relevant dates have been disclosed as below:-
"That notification no. 2 of 2021 dated 16.03.2021 was published inviting applications for the posts of Lecturers in various Inter Colleges.
A. 1708.2021- written examination was held.
B. 18.08.2021- first key answer was published.
C. 06.10.2021- second key answer was published.
d. 25.10.2021- interview was held.
E. 30.10.2021- final result was declared.
F. 06.11.2021- petitioner preferred representation raising objections in regard to question nos. 27, 54, 96 & 125 (page no. 72 of the writ petition).
G. 17.12.2021- when no action was taken, petitioner preferred Writ Petition NO. 16588 of 2021. (page no. 75 of the writ petition).
H. 29.11.2021- orders were passed by Hon'ble Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No. 27543 of 2021 on the statement of Commission that candidates who have given answered to be " रराजजेश जजोशश " of question no. 96 result would be revised.
I. 06.12.2021- based upon the aforesaid, the selected candidates were restrained to jaoin an order in this regard was passed by the Commission.
J. 10.12.2021- again revised answer key was published.
K. 08.01.2022- interview for new selected candidates were held.
L. 13.01.2022- representation of the petitioner decided in pursuance of order dated 17.12.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 16588 of 2021.
M. 21.01.2022-revised result was declared."
Thus, on its part, the Board published the model answer key on 18.08.2021 wherein it proposed to award marks for correct answer response to Question No. 27 of Booklet Series 'A' against option 'A'. For ready reference Question No. 27 of Booklet Series 'A' relevant to the above examination reads as below:-
" 27. एक तत ् सम शब ् द हह
(A) डराककनश (B) तजेल
(C) न्यजोछरावर (D) तजरनश"
As against the above proposed correct answer response 'A', the petitioner had marked option 'D' as the correct response. It is the case of the petitioner, both answer responses 'A' and 'D' are correct.
That being the objection, it is relevant and material to mention that the petitioner did not file any objection to the proposed model answer key during the time window allowed for that purpose being 18.08.2021 to 21.8.2021. Pleadings made in that regard in the supplementary counter affidavit filed today, remain unrebutted in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner as noted above. Therefore, it has to be accepted that no objection was filed within time granted by the Board.
It is also undisputed that the final answer key was declared on 6.10.2021. In that, the correct response 'A' to Question No. 27 of answer Booklet Series 'A' remained unaltered. Thereafter, interviews were held on 25.10.2021 and final result appears to have been declared on 30.10.2021. It is after that stage was crossed, the petitioner first filed his objection on 16.11.2021.
In the first place, the objection filed by the petitioner was wholly belated. Then the delay caused may not be overlooked in view of the directions issued by this Court in Writ-A No. 16588 of 2021; Priti Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, filed by the petitioner. For ready reference, the order dated 17.12.2021 passed in that petition is quoted below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri A.K.S. Parihar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayer:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith allot marks to the petitioner for question nos.27, 54, 96 & 125 and thereafter may include the petitioner in the list of selected candidate to be conferred appointment on the post of Lecturer and if need so arises by way of reasoned speaking order on the representation of the petitioner dated 06.11.2021."
It is argued by Sri A.K.S. Parihar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 that for the relief as sought in the present petition, the petitioner has already submitted a representation on 06.11.2021 before the respondent No.2/Secretary, U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj, copy of which is appended as Annexure No.12 to the writ petition. It is further argued that the respondent no.2 will decide the aforesaid representation expeditiously.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection if the aforesaid representation has been decided within a time bound period.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In view of the undertaking given by Sri A.K.S. Parihar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3, this petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.2 to decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from today.
Sri A.K.S. Parihar, learned counsel for respondents is directed to communicate regarding this order to respondent No.2/Secretary, U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj. The information given by him to respondent no.2 shall also deem to be sufficient in the matter. "
By requiring the Board to decide the objections raised by the petitioner, the Court did not extend th limitation to file the objections and it did not confer any jurisdiction with the
respondent-board to deal with the merits of the objection. Neither the order records, the fact that final result had been declared (on that date) nor it requires the Board to deal with the objections on merits. By asking the Board to decide the representation made by the petitioner, the Court only invited the attention of the Board to pass appropriate order to dispose of the representation, in accordance with law.
The law in this regard is clear. Procedure to challenge the correctness of the model answer key has to be followed strictly. It being part of public examination process, the same has to be concluded in the manner prescribed for within the time stipulation. In the context of this examination itself, in Writ-A No. 16597 of 2021; Ram Vishal Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another such challenge raised after the cut off date, was shut out as delayed. That writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 07.12.2021 on the following observations:-
"Since the petitioner has not submitted any objection against the first answer key in respect to aforesaid question, therefore, in the opinion of the Court the objection cannot be raised by the petitioner at this stage in the present writ petition with respect to answers of those questions.
Accordingly, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed with no order as to cost. "
Similar view was taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court with respect to examination conducted pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2016, thus Writ-A No. 2628 of 2020; Uday Bhan Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others. It was dismissed by order dated 20.02.2020. Intra-Court Appeal filed in that case being Special Appeal No. 492 of 2020; Uday Bhan Yadav and 2 others, was dismissed on 06.10.2020 with the following observations:-
"Learned Counsel for the appellant was asked to indicate the last date for submission of objection to tentative answer key to find out whether objection were submitted on or before the last date. The counsel is unable to indicate the last date for submission of objection. In absence of an indication about the last date either in the petition or appeal, it cannot be said that petitioner submitted objection before the last date. The appellant was expected to indicate it to seek his right for correction in the answer key but despite an opportunity to the appellant at least in the appeal, no averment has been made. The final answer sheet and the result of selection was declared in October/November, 2019, as given in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and has not been questioned by the appellant. Now any change in the answer, the results of the selection declared in October/November, 2019 may be effected at the back of selected candidates.
In the light of the observation made above, we find no reason to interfere in the judgment of learned Single Judge.
The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. "
Therefore, it may never be said that the petitioner had any vested or other right to file objection to the model answer 'A' to Question No. 27 of Booklet Series 'A' after declaration of the final result on 26.10.2021.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that 26.10.2021 was not the date of declaration of final result and that such result came to be declared on 21.01.2022, cannot lead this Court to reach the conclusion that petitioner's objection ought to have been dealt with on merits.
It is so, because beside the challenge raised by the petitioner, there appears to have arisen another challenge before this Court sitting at Lucknow in Service Single No. 27543 of 2021; Seema Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others. In that petition, challenge had been raised as to the correct answer response to Question No. 96 of answer booklet Series 'A'. Suffice to note, that
petition did not involve any challenge to the correct answer response to Question No. 27. We are also not aware, as to whether in that case the challenge raised to answer response to Question No. 96, had been raised within the stipulated time or thereafter. In such circumstances, pursuant to the directions issued by the Court in the case of Seema Gupta on 29.11.2021, selected candidates were restrained from joining. Further pursuant to those directions, the answer key was revised with respect to Question No. 96 of answer booklet series 'A' and the revised answer key was published on 10.12.2021. Consequently, certain candidates achieved the cut-off marks and became eligible to be called for interview. Such interview was conducted on 08.01.2022. Thereafter, final result was declared on 21.1.2022 and the selected candidates allowed to join.
Inasmuch as, challenge raised before the Court in the case of Seema Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) was entirely different from the challenge set up in the present case and in absence of any fact pleaded to demonstrate that the petitioner stands on same footing or that the said Seema Gupta had filed her objection after the cut-off date, it would be dangerous on the part of the Court to grant relief to the petitioner on the simple parity claimed.
In view of the above it is concluded, the direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner being Writ-A No. 16583 of 2021; Priti Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (Supra), did not involve the positive direction on the respondent-board to decide the objection raised by the petitioner on merits. In view of clear law in that regard, it has to be held that the objection filed by the petitioner was wholly belated and for that reason, it cannot be accepted for
consideration on merit.
The fact that certain observations may have been made in the impugned order or the fact that the objection has not been rejected as time barred, may not commend to the Court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction to compel the Board now to deal with the belated objection of the petitioner on merits. Discretionary jurisdiction has to be exercised on sound principles to ensure, justice is delivered.
Here, the petitioner had a clear opportunity to object to the model/proposed answer key within such time granted by the Board. Having failed to object to the same in time and having participated in the selection process, the petitioner cannot now turn around and raise objection on merits. It may also be noted that the petitioner took her chance and participated in the interview. Only when she was declared unsuccessful in the final result, she chose to file objection, belatedly on 6.11.2021. As noted above, the facts in the case of Seema Gupta (Supra) were entirely different. No fact has been shown to exist as may allow any parallel to be drawn as may lead the Court to the conclusion (as suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner), that the Board ought to have dealt with and decided the petitioner's objection on merits occasioned by the fact that the second revised answer key was published on 10.12.2021 (pursuant to the order passed in Seema Gupta), on which date the petitioner's objections existed with the board. Here, it may be noted, the order was passed by the Court on earlier petition filed by the petitioner on 17.12.2021, i.e., seven days after declaration of the final revised answer key.
For the reasons noted above, there appears to be no patent illegality or injustice caused to the petitioner as may warrant this Court to exercise the extra jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Any exercise made in that regard would only cost of disturbance to the result which was declared almost one year ago.
In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
No order as to cost. Order Date :- 17.11.2022 Shiraz
Digitally signed by SHIRAZ ALI Date: 2022.11.21 11:28:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise judicial discretion to accept merit objections to an examination answer key filed after the final result has been declared.
Whether a candidate who participated in the selection process after the model answer key was finalized can challenge the correctness of answers in a belated objection.
Whether the direction in an earlier writ petition forfeiting limitation extends jurisdiction to decide merits of belated objections after result declaration.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Priti Singh vs. State of U.P. and othersExplained¶32
Writ-A No. 16588 of 2021; Priti Singh vs. State of U.P. and others
Ram Vishal Yadav vs. State of U.P. and anotherDistinguished¶43
Writ-A No. 16597 of 2021; Ram Vishal Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another
Uday Bhan Yadav vs. State of U.P. and othersDistinguished¶46
Writ-A No. 2628 of 2020; Uday Bhan Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others
Uday Bhan Yadav and 2 othersDistinguished¶46
Special Appeal No. 492 of 2020; Uday Bhan Yadav and 2 others
Seema Gupta vs. State of U.P. and othersDistinguished¶52
Service Single No. 27543 of 2021; Seema Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Priti Singh
State Of U.P.
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
