Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5170 of 2019 Petitioner :- Abhishek Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Kaushik Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The written instructions supplied on behalf of respondent no. 2 is taken on record.
The respondent no. 2 tries to justify the re-evaluation result with the submission that the petitioner has been assigned 'one' mark for correct answer to question no. 46, whereas his other answers are wrong and the answer scripts of the petitioner had been correctly re-evaluated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, demonstrated before the Court that the answer to question no. 9 is correct and the same answer can be found in the key-answer displayed by the respondent no. 2.
Learned Standing counsel though tried to defend the stand taken by respondent no. 2 but could not dispute that the answer to question no. 9 given by the petitioner is same as that in the key answer.
A perusal of the answer scripts of the petitioner indicates that 'zero' mark had been assigned to question no. 9. Even if, the stand of the respondent no. 2 is accepted that one mark had been given to question no. 46, this Court finds that the answer scripts had not been correctly re-evaluated.
Further, one mark is required to be assigned to the petitioner for answer to question no. 9. In the original result, the petitioner got 65 marks (as is reflected from page '40' of the paper book). With the re-evaluation, he got 66 marks.
The respondent no. 2 has to declare correct result of the petitioner by assigning one mark to question no. 9. The corrected result shall be displayed at the website of respondent no. 2 within a fortnight.
With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 26.4.2019/Brijesh