Noor Fatma Vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110751-DB

Chief Justice's Court

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 194 of 2025

Applicant :- Noor Fatma Opposite Party :- The State of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Applicant :- Azim Ahmad Kazmi

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.

¶6

This review petition has been filed by the applicant seeking review of order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this Court in Special Appeal No. 255 of 2025.

¶7

By order dated 09.04.2025, the special appeal filed by the applicant against order dated 10.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WritA No. 10053 of 2018 was dismissed. The review petition has been filed with the submissions that this Court, while deciding the special appeal, had indicated that the applicant was required to obtain 50 marks out of 100 for qualifying to participate in the further selection process, but obtained 47.5 marks only and even if the plea as raised by her pertaining to one question was accepted and one question was deleted reducing the total marks to 97.5, as 47.5 marks would still be less than 48.75 marks, she would be still ineligible and that even if the marks of the deleted question were distributed to the correct questions, still the marks obtained by her would be 48.64 only i.e. less than 50% required, requires reconsideration as the applicant during course of submissions and before the learned Single Judge could not point out that one question no. 24 had already been deleted.

¶8

Submissions have been made that if effect of deletion of question no. 24 is given, the applicant has obtained the requisite 50% marks and, therefore, was eligible for consideration and, therefore, the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this Court requires a review.

¶9

We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the applicant and have perused the judgement dated 09.04.2025 alongwith

¶10

plea raised in the review petition.

¶11

The plea raised in the review petition is very sketchy and incomplete, while the applicant has indicated that question no. 24 was deleted, she has not disclose that what was the effect of deletion of the said question; whether the total marks were reduced or the marks of the deleted question i.e. 2.5 was distributed in the remaining questions or all the candidates were awarded marks for question no. 24. In absence thereof, the effect of the plea raised by the applicant having qualified cannot be examined and, therefore, the said ground raised in the review petition is not sufficient to seek review of the order dated 09.04.2025.

¶12

Besides the above, the said reason was given in addition to the basic reason by the Court in the judgement dated 09.04.2025 for dismissing the said appeal, which reads as under:-

¶13

"15. In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, no interference is required in the determination made by the experts. So far as the submissions made by counsel for the appellant based on the material produced is concerned, the same also cannot be accepted inasmuch as if more than one option on a particular aspect is available and the experts have gone with the nearest option, there is no occasion for this Court then to come to a contrary conclusion."

¶14

Nothing has been indicated in the review petition qua the said finding recorded by the Court, as such irrespective of the plea now sought to be raised by the applicant/appellant, the dismissal of the special appeal on the principal ground quoted hereinbefore would stand.

¶15

In view thereof, no case for entertaining the present review petition is made out, the same is, therefore, dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 9.7.2025 SL

¶17

(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHYAM LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Noor Fatma v. the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noor Fatma v. the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases