Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5984 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
To challenge the re-evaluation result, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the answer to question no. 76 is correct and the petitioner is entitled for one mark to the said question.
During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the correctness of evaluation of the answer to the remaining questions.
The Court, therefore, proceeded to examine the answer given by the petitioner to the question no. 76 only.
A perusal of the answer script of the petitioner, the question booklet series-D and the key answer, the answer given by the petitioner to question no. 76 is found close to the key answer. There appears to be some spelling mistake in the answer given to question no. 76 as instead of writing “सोंठ”, the petitioner had written the word “शोठ”.
It can, thus, be seen that the petitioner was well acquainted with the answer to the question no. 76 but made a spelling mistake while writing the same.
In view of the judgment of this Court in Aniruddh Narayan Shukla and 118 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ- A No. 18235 of 2018 , this Court is of the view that the answer to question no. 76 of the petitioner shall be treated as a correct answer and one mark shall be provided to the petitioner for the same.
The re-evaluation result of the petitioner shall, thus, be corrected and uploaded at the website of the respondent no. 2, within a fortnight.
The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 26.4.2019/Brijesh