Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6302 of 2019 Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shatrughan Sonwal,Radha Kant Ojha, Sr. Advocate,Shivendu Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No.2 of 2021:-
Heard learned Standing Counsel for the review applicant and learned counsel for the petitioner.
The delay in filing the review application has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court.
The delay condonation application is allowed.
The delay in filing the review application is hereby condoned.
Order on Review Application No.3 of 2021:-
The judgment and order dated 02.05.2019 is sought to be reviewed by means of the instant application on the basis of clause (5) of the General instruction in the question booklet, appended at page No.'19' of the paper book.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the review applicant that the said clause had not been taken note by this Court while allowing the writ petition. The contention is that the answer to Question No.'72' given by the petitioner cannot be said to be correct, in as much as, he had given multiple answers to the said question.
Page No.44 of the paper book demonstrates the answer given by the petitioner to Question No.'72' as under:-
"नककारकात्मक यका वकाह्य पपुनररलन"
The key answer of question No.'72' is appended at page No.'33' of the paper book which is to be noted as under:-
"नककारकात्मक / ऋणकात्मक पपुनररलन / ककससी भसी प्रककार कका पपुनररलन नहहीं हहै / ददंडकात्मक एवदं कनषषेधकात्मक / कनरररक / कनषषेधकात्मक पपुनररलन"
The instruction in clause (5) of the question booklet is also relevant to be noted for the ready reference:-
"प्रश्ननों कषे उत्तर-पत्रक मम सदंख्यका वकार तरसीकषे सषे कनधकारररत स्रकान पर हसी कदयका जकानका हहै। प्रश्न कका एक हसी उत्तर कदयका जकानका हहै। एक सषे अधधक उत्तर दषेनषे ककी दशका मम उत्तर गलत मकानका जकाएगका तरका उसकका ममूल्यकादंकन नहहीं ककयका जकायषेगका।"
Having gone through the key answer and the answer given by the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner had given multiple answers (two answers) to Question No.'72', One of which is correct whereas another alternative answer given by the petitioner could not be demonstrated to be correct in view of the key answer at page No.'33' of the paper book.
Additionally, on a pointed query made by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not bring any material before the Court which would demonstrate that the alternative answer "वकाह्य पपुनररलन" given by the petitioner is a correct answer.
In the said scenario, clause (5) of the General instructions in question booklet noted above would be attracted and the answer of the petitioner to the Question No.'72' would be treated as incorrect. No marks, therefore, could have been awarded to the petitioner for the said answer.
Placing the judgement and order dated 13.10.2018 passed in Writ-A No.18235 of 2018 (Aniruddh Narayan Shukla & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court had directed that the Examination Regulatory Authority shall evaluate the answer script in such a manner that it would not give precedence to form over substance and if the answers are correct, the candidates would be awarded marks even if there is some cuttings or overwriting. It was further clarified that in case the candidates had given two answers, although they were required to give one answer, the examining authority would be at liberty to ignore the answer, in as much as, the candidates are expected to give only one answer and not two answers.
This observation is sought to be pressed into service to assert that since one of the answers given by the petitioner (to Question No.'72') is correct, the wrong answer is liable to be ignored in view of the above directions.
This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not found convincing, in as much as, a careful reading of the above noted observations clearly indicate the Court had made the said observations in the light of the issue raised therein that no marks had been awarded in view of certain cuttings or overwriting, although answers were right and legible. The Court had, thus, contemplated a situation where two or more correct answers had been given by the candidates or there was cutting and overwriting. The said observations cannot be interpreted to mean that the Court had directed the examining authority to ignore the wrong answers, in case of the multiple answers given by the candidates.
Looking to the said fact, this Court finds that an error apparent on the face of the record has occurred while passing the judgement and order dated 02.05.2019, giving direction to the respondent to grant one mark for Question No.'72' in the answer script of the petitioner.
The review application is, therefore, allowed.
The judgement and order dated 02.05.2019 is, thus, reviewed.
The writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Himanshu