Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18808 of 2021
Petitioner :- Ranjeet Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the following prayers:-
"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to revise the result and to grant the grace marks to the petitioner for the question No.60 of Booklet-Series-A and also may be declared as qualified in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2019 conducted by the respondent no.2 in compliance of order dated 25.08.2021 passed in Special Appeal No. D-343 of 2021 (Abhishek Srivastava and 14 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others).
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus directing the respondent authorities to given appointment to the petitioner in respect of selection of 69000 Assistant Teacher after evaluation of result of the petitioner in compliance of order dated 25.08.2021 passed in Special Appeal No.D-343 of 2021 (Abhishek Srivastava and 14 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others)."
It is admitted between the parties that the controversy involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 25.08.2021 passed in a bunch of Special Appeals being leading SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 343 of 2021 (Abhishek Srivastava And 14 Others Vs. State Of Up And 2 Others). The operative portion of the order is reproduced below:-
"It is stated that selections have already been finalized followed by appointments but merely for that reason, the candidates having a case in their favour cannot be deprived to get benefit. Keeping in mind that selections have already been completed followed by appointments, direction in these appeals would apply only to those candidates who have raised the issue by maintaining a writ by now and not to any other candidate. The benefit to the candidates therein also would be if they are short of one mark because the value of each question is of one mark.
The matter is not referred to the expert for its examination finding that answer to Question No.60 was not correctly selected. The issue could not even be contested by the respondents thus to avoid further delay in the matter, we direct the respondents to take a decision appropriately to award one mark to the litigants till date.
To avoid any complication, the non-appellants can give value of one mark to the litigants for Question No.60 which otherwise can be with deletion to increase the value of all the questions proportionately but then it may open a Pandora and this Court do not intend to disturb the appointments already made thus direction is kept limited to the writ petitioners. If with award of one mark to any of the litigants till date before Allahabad High Court, they find place in the merit, then the respondents would give them appointment, subject to satisfaction of other conditions, if any.
The exercise aforesaid would not effect in any manner the selection or appointments already made. The benefit would be given to the appellants and the writ petitioners, if they are short of one mark and not otherwise. If any of the litigant till date are short by two marks in the merit, they would not be entitled to any benefit of this judgment.
With the aforesaid direction, all the appeals are disposed of after causing interference in the impugned judgment limited to Question No. 60."
It is clear that specific directions were given in the aforesaid Special Appeal that the benefit of the said judgement has been given only to those candidates who have raised the issue by maintaining a writ by now.
Since no writ petition was preferred by the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit as has been given in the aforesaid judgement.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021 Pramod Tripathi