Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 184 of 2021 Appellant :- Aradhya Shukla (Minor) Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Aishwarya Kumar Singh,Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dhananjay Awasthi,Dinesh Varun
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Dinesh Varun, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 Union of India.
By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 11.01.2021 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant/petitioner was dismissed.
The writ petition was filed alleging manipulation in the answer sheet of physics, chemistry and mathematics for Intermediate Examination, 2019-2020.
The learned Single Judge did not find material but a liberty was given to make an application before the concerned authorities for investigation and the authorities concerned were asked to look into the matter seriously with an inquiry on the claim made by the appellant.
The appeal has yet been filed. It is alleging removal of the papers from the answer sheets and at the same time manipulation therein. To examine the issue, the copies of all the three subjects were called and even shown to the learned counsel for the appellant. It was alleged that in the paper of mathematics, page number 5 and 6 apart from other pages are missing. The learned counsel for appellant were shown the answer sheet which contained all the papers rather on page number 5 writing of the appellant/petitioner exists.
The officers are present to give reasons for award of marks in the mark-sheet while the appellant/petitioner secured zero marks in his answer sheet. The award of marks in the mark- sheet is due to moderation where the marks of the candidates increase or decrease in a given case. The explanation aforesaid is taken to be satisfactory.
At this stage, we are not making any comment in reference to the allegation because a liberty has been given to the appellant/petitioner to approach the respondents and thereby find no reason to cause interference. We even find direction to be favourable to the appellant/petitioner to some extent.
Accordingly, interference in the judgment is not made rather the appeal is dismissed. It is with the observation that if the appellant wants to appear in the intermediate examination again, he would be permitted to appear and accordingly the appellant would apply for the appearance in the examination as and when schedule for the examination is given by the respondents. It would obviously be by putting the application as per the provisions of law for appearance.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Nirmal Sinha (Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.) (Munishwar Nath Bhandari, A.C.J.)