Partly allowed

Nitesh Kumar Singh Yadav v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2023WRIA/19234/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In three clubbed writ petitions concerning the Revenue Lekhpal examination, the High Court held that for Question 88, where the correct answer spellled was misspelt and 'None of these' was an option, both the misspelt option and 'None of these' should be treated as correct to grant marks to affected candidates.

What did the court decide?

Direction to grant one mark to candidates who opted for 'Option-D' (None of these) or 'Option-A' (misspelt) in Question No. 88 of Booklet F and equivalent questions.

Nitesh Kumar Singh Yadav Vs State of U P and 2… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19234 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Nitesh Kumar Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Siddharth Singhal

¶5

ALONG WITH

¶6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16567 of 2022

¶7

Petitioner :- Shri Dhar Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Siddharth Singhal.

¶8

ALONG WITH

¶9

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16951 of 2022

¶10

Petitioner :- Rovin Agrawal Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Samarth Sinha,Vijay Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Siddharth Singhal.

¶11

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶12

Heard Shri Seemant Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WRIT-A No.19234/2022 and WRIT-A No.16567/2022 and Shri Samarth Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WRITA No.16951/2022 and Shri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 as well as learned standing counsel for the Staterespondent No.1.

¶13

Since, the issue involved in all the three petitions is common, accordingly, they have been clubbed together and heard and are being decided by means of this common judgment.

¶14

For the sake of convenience, the facts are being noticed from the WRIT-A No.19234/2022 and whereever the facts of other petitions becomes necessary to be noticed, it will be incorporated in the judgment.

¶15

The petitioners, in all the three petitions, had applied for the selection

¶16

¶17

on the post of Revenue Lekhpal, which was initiated by means of the Advertisement No.01-Exam/2022, issued by the respondent No.2. All the petitioners had already cleared the Preliminary Eligibility Test, 2021 and were called upon to appear in the main examination. The main examination was held on 31.07.2022 at the respective centres. The respondents No.2 and 3 issued an answer-key which was uploaded on the official website of the Commission on 01.08.2022 against which the petitioner of WRIT-A No.19234 had submitted his objections against Question No.61, 78, 88, 92 and 93 of the Booklet “F” Series.

¶18

It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioners seek a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the answer-key issued by the respondent No.3 only to the extent of Questions No.61, 78, 88, 92 and 93 of the main examination in pursuance of the Advertisement No.01-Exam/2022, issued by the respondent No.2. A further relief in the nature of mandamus has been sought to direct the respondents to award ‘one mark’ each for the questions by correcting the impugned revised answer-key.

¶19

In the other two connected petitions, primarily the same relief has been sought. However, insofar as the WRIT-A No.16951/2022 is concerned, the dispute is confined only to Questions No.88 and 93 of Booklet “F” Series. In the other connected petition bearing WRIT-A No.19234/2022, the dispute is in respect of Questions No.86 and 91 of Booklet “B” Series.

¶20

It will be relevant to mention here that Questions No.86 and 91 of the Booklet “B” Series are identical to the Questions No.88 and 93 in the Booklet “F” Series. It will be further worthwhile to notice that Shri

¶21

¶22

Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 had pointed out that insofar as the controversy relating to Questions No.61, 92 and 93 is concerned, the same was made subject matter of another WRIT-A No.19573/2022, which has been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid, this Court proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the parties primarily on Questions No.78 and 88 of the Booklet “F” Series which is identical to the questions in the Booklet “B” Series, which is the subject matter of the connected petitions.

¶24

To cull out the controversy with clarity, it will be relevant to reproduce the two questions which are the subject matter of the controversy. Question No.78 reads as under with its options as given in the question paper:-

¶25

“78. Which of the following scheme of Indian government

¶26

proposes to prevent the migration of youth from the rural areas to urban areas?

¶27

(A) PURA (B) NSAP

¶28

¶29

whereas, Question No.88 along with its options as given in the question paper, which reads as under:-

¶30

“88. Which of the following schemes is for Prevention of Trafficking and Rescue, Rehabilitation and Re-integration of Victims of Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation?

¶31

(A) Ujjwala Scheme

¶32

(B) Aajeevika Scheme

¶33

¶34

(D) None of these”

¶35

¶36

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that insofar as the Question No.78 is concerned, the Commission has treated Option-A ‘PURA’ as the correct answer, whereas, as per the petitioners, it is urged that it is not the correct answer for the reason that earlier the Scheme which related to prevent the migration of youth from rural areas to urban areas was known as “PURA”. However, subsequently, a question was raised in the Parliament on 17.11.2016, wherein it was informed before the August House that ‘PURA’ Scheme has been replaced by ‘Shyama Prasad Mukherji Rurban Mission (SPMRM)’. It is thus, urged that the answer which has been accepted by the Committee as ‘Option-A’ is incorrect.

¶37

It is also urged that similarly, insofar as Question No.88 is concerned, which relates to the Scheme for Prevention of Trafficking and Rescue, Rehabilitation and Re-integration of Victims of Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation, as per the petitioner none of the answers which were provided in the paper was correct. Accordingly, ‘Option-D’ which states “None of these”, was the correct answer, however, the Commission has treated ‘Option-A’ “UJJWALA Scheme” as correct.

¶38

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that actually, “UJJWALA Scheme” is a Scheme which was initiated by the Government and it related to providing clear fuel and to provide LPG Feul to the households. It is thus, submitted that the Scheme which was the subject matter of the Question No.88 is “UJJAWALA”. Since, the aforesaid option was not available and there was a clear ‘Option-D’, “None of these”. Accordingly, the correct answer ought to have been “D” and it is incorrect

¶39

¶40

on the part of the respondents to treat ‘Option-A’ as the correct answer.

¶41

Shri Singhal, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 while refuting the aforesaid submissions has urged that the answers which have been uploaded by the Commission is based on thorough check. It has been urged that Question No.78 which relates to the Scheme of the Indian Government to prevent migration of youth from the rural areas to urban areas had four options wherein PURA ‘Option-A’, was the correct answer.

¶42

It has further been submitted that it cannot be disputed by the petitioners that the said Scheme was never known as “PURA”. Even assuming, if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted even then it would indicate that the name of the Scheme was “PURA”, however, subsequently it was replaced by ‘Shyama Prasad Mukherji Rurban Mission (SPMRM)’. It is pointed out that in case of multiple choice questions, the candidate is required to answer and opt for such answer which is nearest to the options available and in the instant case, out of the four options (A) PURA, (B) NSAP, (C) SAJY and (D) SGRY, ‘Option-A’, being the nearest and undoubtedly the most accurate, was rightly held by the experts to be correct answer.

¶43

It is further pointed out that admittedly, the petitioners in all the three petitions did not mark ‘Option-A’ and even if at all their contention is taken to be correct that the Scheme was replaced even then it would have been known as “SPMRM” and none of the option contained such answer/choice, therefore, the nearest answer which was correct was ‘PURA’, hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners does not hold water.

¶44

¶45

Shri Singhal further pointed out that insofar as the Question No.88 is concerned, there appears to be a spelling mistake inasmuch as the Scheme which is referred to in Question No.88 is known as “UJJAWALA” which is ‘Option-A’. However, it appears to be mis-spelt as it is mentioned as “UJJWALA” and he admits that one alphabet ‘A’ is missing. He thus, urged that for the aforesaid reason where there may be a spelling mistake but insofar as the Scheme in question is concerned, it related to UJJAWALA as known in common parlance and for the said reason, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners may not be accepted.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute that insofar as the Multiple Choice Questions are concerned, a candidate is required to answer and choose from amongst the options available which is most nearest and accurate to the options as given in the paper. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute that the Scheme which is referred to in Question No.78 was known as “PURA” and in absence of any other option of “SPMRM”, the nearest available option was ‘Option-A’ which has not been answered by the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners insofar as the Question No.78 is concerned. Consequently, their submissions for Question No.78 is accordingly turned down.

¶47

Adverting to the submission relating to the Question No.88, this Court finds that there appears to be an ambiguity inasmuch as the Scheme which is the subject matter of Question No.88 is actually and correctly spelt as “UJJAWALA” which is a Scheme initiated by the Government of India through its Ministry of Women and Child Development.

¶48

¶49

Shri Singhal could not dispute the fact that the correct spelling of the said Scheme is ‘UJJAWALA’ and it is also admitted by him that in Question No.88 the ‘Option-A’, answer has been misspelt and is mentioned as ‘UJJWALA’ in the paper.

¶50

In this context, if the submission of the learned counsel for the parties is considered by the Court, it is found that ‘Option-D’ which states ‘None of these’, appears to be most appropriate answer for the reason that another Scheme of the Central Government relating to providing LPG Cylinder and clean fuel to all households is known as ‘UJJWALA’. Thus, on a careful reading of the aforesaid Question No.88, it would indicate that ‘Option-A’ would refer to the Scheme related to providing clean fuel and LPG Cylinder to the households. ‘Option-D’ stated ‘None of these’, had this option not been available then perhaps the issue of incorrect spelling could be of some help to the respondents as then again the accurate available option could have been ‘Option-A’. However, in the instant case, the ‘Option-D’, “None of these”, is also amongst the options and it clearly tested the alacrity of the candidate to discern the distinction between the two befitting options A and D on the basis of the spelling difference between “UJJWALA” - ‘Option-A’, and the actual “UJJAWALA” and since “UJJAWALA” was not an option and “UJJWALA” did not relate to the Scheme which was the subject matter of the Question No.88, hence, “None of these” option was quite plausible, accurate and befitting, hence, it cannot be said that the candidates who opted for ‘Option-D’ answered incorrectly.

¶51

It is in this context, the Court had permitted Shri Singhal to seek his instructions as shall be evident from the order dated 15.02.2023 passed by

¶52

¶53

this Court, which read as under:-

¶54

“Heard Shri Seemant Singh and Shri Samarth Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners in the two connected petitions and Shri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no.2 and 3 in both the petitions.

¶55

The issue in question is in respect of the questions no.78 and 88 and ss per the petitioners have wrongly been assessed by the Commission.

¶56

Making his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner in so far as the question no.78 is concerned alleges that as per the Commission answer no. A is appropriate whereas the submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that this is not the correct stand; inasmuch as the option A was the Scheme earlier which was replaced by a subsequent scheme for Shyama Prasad Mukherjee RURBAN Mission (SPNRN) and since the said option was not available, accordingly it cannot be said that option A is correct.

¶57

Shri Singhal, on the other hand, submits in a multiple choice answer given to a question the answer which is nearest to the option which are available is to be seen and as per the expert advise option A has been found to be appropriate.

¶58

Similarly, in respect of question No.88, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that there are two options A and D. As per the Commission, option A is the correct answer whereas the petitioners have opted for answer D. It has been submitted that option A relates to 'UJJWALA' Scheme' which is a Scheme related to LPG cylinders whereas the scheme which is the subject matter in the question is 'UJJAWALA' and therefore the correct answer is D, which would be appropriate.

¶59

Shri Singhal submits that he may be granted some short time to ascertain instructions and also inform as to whether the results can be redrawn on the basis of treating the option D as correct and awarding the marks to the candidates who have opted for answer D.

¶60

List this matter tomorrow i.e. 16th of February, 2023 at 2.00 P.M., as fresh.”

¶61

On the basis of the instructions, as received, by Shri Singhal, he submits that those large number of candidates who may have opted for ‘Option-A’, which is approved in the answer-key by the Commission and at this stage if ‘Option-D’ is taken to be correct then they would be deprived of raising their objections and all such candidates who have answered ‘Option-A’ would be deprived and they would loose out.

¶62

It is further urged and suggested by Shri Singhal that in order to create a level playing field either all the candidates may be permitted to be assessed on 99 marks paper effacing Question No.78 or in the alternative,

¶63

¶64

the candidates, who have answered ‘Option-D’, may also be granted the marks so that they may not loose out.

¶65

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record including the discussions hereinabove, this Court is of the clear opinion that ‘Option-D’, in respect of Question No.88 of Booklet “F” Series which is equivalent to Question No.86 in Booklet “B” Series cannot be treated to be an incorrect answer. Consequently, the candidates, who had opted for ‘Option-D’, “None of these” in respect of the aforesaid Question No.88 in Booklet “F” Series would also be entitled to one mark. The Court accept the suggestion of Shri Singhal that all such candidates who have answered the Question No.88 in Booklet “F” Series and its equivalent in other booklet series with ‘Option-D’ would be entitled to grant of one mark provided such candidates opted for either ‘Option-A’ “UJJWALA”, or ‘Option-D’, “None of these”. Consequently, both the options A and D be treated as correct answer.

¶66

With the aforesaid, the petition is partly allowed. A direction is issued to the respondents No.2 and 3 that they shall re-calibrate the result by granting one mark to all such candidates, who have opted for either ‘Option-D’ or ‘Option-A’ in question No.88, in Booklet “F” Series and its equivalent in all other series.

¶67

In view of the aforesaid directions issued by this Court, the petition is partly allowed and in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶68

Order Date :- 16.02.2023 Rakesh/-

¶69

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nitesh Kumar Singh Yadav v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitesh Kumar Singh Yadav v. State of U P and 2 Others

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

Chandra Bhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Malook Chand Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pankaj Kumar Srivastava and 6 Others Vs High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and 2 Others

Smt.Kanchan Chaurasia Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Suraj Giri Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others