Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 237 of 2018 Appellant :- Rashmi Kant Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pragati Mishra,Dinesh Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Prakash Shukla
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2018
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we are satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the Special Appeal within the period of limitation.
The application is, accordingly, allowed and the delay in filing the Special Appeal is condoned.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 Junaid (Dilip Gupta,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.) Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 237 of 2018 Appellant :- Rashmi Kant Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pragati Mishra,Dinesh Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Prakash Shukla
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29 January 2018 by which a learned Judge of this Court has dismissed bunch of Writ Petitions.
The result of the petitioners who had appeared at U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test of 2017 was not declared for the reason that the writ petitioners had incorrectly filled the Registration/Roll Number in the OMR answer sheet.
This Court by a detailed order dated 25 April 2018 dismissed as many as 9 Special Appeals that had been filed against the same judgment and order dated 29 January 2018.
Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, submitted that, in fact, the writ petitioner had correctly filled the Registration/Roll Number and the examining body was not justified in asserting that Roll Number had been wrongly filled.
In order to ascertain this, we required the learned counsel for the appellant to place before us the carbon copy of the OMR answer sheet that the petitioner had submitted during the examination. Learned counsel for the appellant did produce before the Court the carbon copy of the OMR answer sheet. A bare perusal of the OMR answer sheet indicates that in regard to the Roll Number which was required to be darkened, the writ petitioner had darkened two circles for the fifth digit. Thus, the Roll Number was incorrectly filled by the writ petitioner.
Learned counsel for the appellant is, therefore, not correct in contending that there was no error in filling up the Roll Number. The Authorities were, therefore, justified in not declaring the result of the writ petitioner.
The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 Junaid (Dilip Gupta,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.)