Dismissed

Dileep Kumar Singh Pno. No. 152311245 v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2024WRIA/1481/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the recruitment examination results for Sub-Inspector post. The Court held that the petitioner approached the authority with unexplained laches, waiting over two years to raise an issue that was allegedly known at the time of the exam. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's own choice (Option A) was marked correct in t

What the court decided

AI extract

Dileep Kumar Singh Pno. No. 152311245 vs State of… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17616

¶2

Court No. - 18

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1481 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Singh Pno. No. 152311245 Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- M.P. Raju Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

The present writ petition has been preferred for issuing direction to the respondents to provide full marks in question no. 4 of Hindi question paper in the written examination to the petitioner by treating option-(B) as correct option and to further direct the respondents to reevaluate the key answer OMR Sheet of the written examination by making correction in the key answer of question no. 4 of Hindi question paper as mentioned above and declare the result of the petitioner for the post of SubInspector Civil Police Direct Recruitment 2020-2021.

¶7

Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had appeared in the written examination for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police, Direct Recruitment 2020-2021. The petitioner had secured 315.37 marks in general category and the last selected candidate had secured 316.11 marks and if the answer of one question is corrected in the key answer sheet, the petitioner would have been selected.

¶8

On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent no. 2 has submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court at a belated stage without explaining the laches. The results had been finalised and the candidates have been sent for training, which is going to be completed in March 2024 itself. He further submitted that the books which have been referred and enclosed in the present writ petition, in that both the answers of Question No. 4 indicated as option (A) and option (B) are shown to be correct. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through records of the case, it is found that the written examination was conducted on 20.11.2022 and the petitioner had appeared in the same. As per the petitioner, the answer of Question No. 4 in Hindi Question Paper was option-(A) whereas the correct answer is option-(B) as per the standard books of Hindi. The petitioner had not made any representation immediately after appearing in the written examination. The results were declared on 12.06.2022, the selected candidates have already been sent for training for the post of Sub-Inspector in March

¶10

Even by that time, the petitioner had not made any representation or approached the authorities informing that the answer of Question No. 4 in Hindi Question paper was a wrong answer given in the key answer sheet and for the first time, after about two years, the petitioner had made a representation on 25.10.2023 when the selection was completed and the candidates were sent for training and that too as per the petitioner, that wrong answer shown in the key answer sheet was within the knowledge of the petitioner from the date of written examination dated 20.11.2021. The petitioner had not shown any reason for not making any representation immediately after appearing in the written examination. He waited for his results and when he was not not selected after about more than one year, he had made a representation.

¶11

According to the petitioner also option-(A) is shown to be correct answer in the key answer sheet, that being the position, the petitioner cannot raise any grievance on that ground, since answer-(A) has been chosen to be correct. The fact that the petitioner has approached this Court after long lapse of time i.e. with unexplained laches on his part as discussed earlier. In the circumstances, no interference is called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶12

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 27.2.2024 DiVYa

¶14

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dileep Kumar Singh Pno. No. 152311245 v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dileep Kumar Singh Pno. No. 152311245 v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devi Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Revenue Lko.and Ors.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Dr. Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush Anubhag I U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Mahendra Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Dileep Kumar Singh Pno. No. 152311245 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Chander Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others