Dismissed

Priyanka Bharti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Govt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2023/42/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the state's special appeal against a Single Judge's order upholding the rejection of an applicant's matters regarding an Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination. The Court ruled that even granting hypothetical marks would not affect the applicant's selection status.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal filed by the State is dismissed, upholding the Single Judge's order dismissing the applicant's writ petition.

Priyanka Bharti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 42 of 2023

¶3

Appellant :- Priyanka Bharti Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Govt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Girish Kumar Pandey,Sher Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Chaurasiya,Ran Vijay Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri G.K.Pandey, learned counsel for appellant-petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Neeraj Chaurasiya, learned counsel for District Basic Education Officer, Ambedkar Nagar.

¶6

By instituting these proceedings under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, challenge has been made to the judgment and order dated 09.01.2023, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.31750 of 2019, whereby writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed.

¶7

The grievance raised by the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition was related to alleged incorrect award of marks in relation to question nos. A-4, A-33, A-44 and A-122 of 'C' Series Booklet in connection with the examination known as 'Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination 2018'.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for appellantpetitioner that so far as question no.A-33 is concerned, the appellant-petitioner has not been awarded any marks only on the count that the answer given by the appellant carried some overwriting and cutting which view is in contravention of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Aniruddh Narayan Shukla and others vs. State of U.P. and others , decided on 30.10.2018 (Writ-A No.18235 of 2018). It has been argued further that so far as the questions no.A-44 and A-122 are concerned, the appellant-petitioner had given correct answers, however, it has wrongly been recorded that the answers given by her, were not correct. Accordingly, it has been prayed that learned Single Judge has not given any thought to the aforesaid aspects of the matter which renders the judgment and order dated 09.01.2013 untenable.

¶9

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

¶10

for appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the State as also by Sri Neeraj Chaurasiya, learned counsel for District Basic Education Officer, who have opposed the instant special appeal.

¶11

So far as non-award of marks in relation to question no. A-33 is concerned, even if we agree that overwriting or cutting in the answer given by the appellant-petitioner could not have been taken into account to deny her awarding marks against the said question, what we find is that if that answer is taken to be correct, the aggregate of the appellant shall be increased only by two marks. These two marks will be increased if the appellant is given the marks against the questions no.A-33 and A-4. However, even increase of these two marks in the aggregate marks obtained by the appellant-petitioner will not make her successful in the examination. As regards question nos. A-44 and A-122, we may only observe that learned Single Judge has clearly recorded finding that there was no error in regard to non-award of marks as the answer given by the appellant was clearly not in accordance with the master key.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge.

¶13

This special appeal, thus, fails which is hereby dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 15.2.2023 Renu/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Priyanka Bharti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Govt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Bharti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Govt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 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

Emaar India Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Mr. Ashish Singh, Lko. Vs State of U.P. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Devlp. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Lko. and Others

Mtv Buddhist Religious andCHARITABLE Trust Thru President andANR Vs State of U.P.through Prin.Secy. Minorities Welfare and Ors.

Ashwani Kumar Vs State of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy.Revenue Deptt.Lko and Ors.

Moti Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P.Thr.Secy.Housing and Urban Development Deptt.andORS

Smt. Harshita Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Jail Admini. and Reform Serv. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

Dr. Om Prakash Gupta and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Chief Secy. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others