1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh Bhadauriya, Sri L.B. Singh, Sri R.K. Singh, Sri Agendra Sinha, Sri Rajesh Kumar Verma, Sri Ambrish Tripathi and Sri Beer Singh Bot, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Since the facts of all the cases connected in the bunch are more or less similar and the prayer of all the writ petitions are atleast similar, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the bunch of these writ petitions is being decided by the common judgment.
3. The subject matter of these writ petitions is relating to the recruitment of Constable (Civil Police) and the Provincial Armed Constabulary (P.A.C.) through direct recruitment -2018. Admittedly, the advertisement was issued for the aforesaid selection on 14.01.2018. The written test was conducted on 19.06.2018. The Provisional Answer Key was notified on 28.06.2019. In Clause-3 of the said notification, it has specifically been provided that the objections against the Provisional Answer Key can be filed/ submitted through online and no other mode e.g. Registry, Speed Post and e.mail etc. shall be accepted. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid provision, so many candidates have submitted their objections against the Provisional Answer Key within a stipulated time. However, some of the candidates have not submitted their respective objections against the Provisional Answer Key and such type of candidates are also petitioners in some of the writ petition of this bunch.
4. On 05.12.2018, the Board issued the Final Answer Key of the respective question papers and declared the final result of the written examination.
5. The case set-forth by learned counsel for and on behalf of some petitioners is that some objections have not been considered properly and the defects were still existing in the Final Answer Key which has been circulated on 05.12.2018. However, admittedly none of the present petitioners in the bunch of these writ petitions have raised any objection to that effect nor filed any writ petition after 05.12.2018. The reason assigned by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the aforesaid objections being not removed by the Competent Authority but the petitioners were declared successful in the written examination, therefore, they opted not to challenge the said irregularities at that point of time.
6. Since the petitioners had qualified in the written examination, therefore, they appeared for scrutiny of documents and physical standard test strictly as per rules in the month of December, 2018 and January, 2019 on different dates. After successfully qualifying the documents verification and physical standard test, the petitioners appeared for physical efficiency test in the month of January, 2019. On 18.02.2019, the opposite party-Board issued a final select list/ result where the present petitioners of the bunch could not secure their place.
7. Admittedly, no writ petition has been filed immediately after the final result being declared on 18.02.2019 but the writ petitions have been filed in the month of May, 2019, June, 2019, August, 2019 and October, 2019.
8. In all the writ petitions of the present bunch, the petitioners have prayed that the final select list dated 18.02.2019 be quashed and the petitioners be awarded marks for the wrong questions which has not been corrected by the authority concerned when the objections to that effect were filed in the month of June, 2018. On behalf of those petitioners who could not file objections against the Provisional Answer Key, it has been submitted that they could not be known about the notification whereby the objections against the Provisional Answer Key were called. Therefore, they may be given marks for question they attempted which was, as per learned counsel for the petitioners, true but the Provisional Answer-sheet and the Final Answer Key provides otherwise.
9. On behalf of those petitioner who has filed online objections on or before the stipulated date, it has been submitted that despite raising specific objection providing the proper evidence to that effect that the said answer was not correct but that answer was not corrected, resultant thereof, the petitioners were given minus marks for the reason his correct answer has been treated as wrong answer and there was a provision of providing minus marking for wrong answer. Therefore, those petitioners have suffered duel loss, first, their correct answer has been treated as incorrect answer and second, for their correct answer they have been given minus marking.
10. The candidates who have not submitted their respective objections pursuant to the notification dated 28.06.2018 may not legally say that they were not made known regarding the notification for the simple reason that so many candidates have submitted their objections which were redressed by the Competent Authority. There was no need to intimate about such notification personally.
11. Those candidates who has submitted their online objections well in time were made known on 05.12.2018 when the Final Answer Key was issued that their objections have been met out, however, their one or two answers have not been rectified. Therefore, those candidates could have raised their grievances either before the authority concerned or before this Court immediately after knowing such fact on 05.12.2018 when the Final Answer Key was issued but admittedly no such grievance was raised nor the writ petition was filed in the month of December, 2018 or till the issuance of the final result which was issued on 18.02.2019.
12. Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has submitted with vehemence that neither the petitioners have raised their objections well in time nor they approached the Court after issuing the Final Answer Key even till the declaration of the final result and in most of the writ petitions the necessary parties have not been impleaded in the array of opposite parties, who have been qualified finally. However, in one writ petition, two persons have been impleaded in the array of opposite parties as a representative capacity. Therefore, as per Sri Singh, all the writ petitions may be dismissed with costs being not maintainable.
13. Before parting with, I am taking note that the coordinate Bench of this Court at Allahabad dismissed the identical writ petition vide order dated 25.09.2019 passed in Writ- A No.14639 of 2019; Sandeep Sharma vs. State of U.P. & another.
14. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, perusing the relevant material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that since the petitioners of this bunch of writ petitions have not approached this Court well in time, to say when the Final Answer Key was circulated on 05.12.2018 even till the declaration of final result on 18.02.2019 and they participated in the selection in question without raising any grievance at that point of time and the selected candidates have not been impleaded in the array of opposite parties, therefore, the bunch of writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed being misconceived.
15. No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]