Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Shakti Kumar Mishra vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|26 August, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16961 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shakti Kumar Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Srivastava,Avaneesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kailash Singh Kushwaha,Kunal Ravi Singh
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kunal Ravi Singh as well as Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha appearing for the contesting respondents.
In a writ petition filed earlier by the petitioner assailing the results declared by the Commission with respect to the Chakbandi Lekhpal Examination 2015, a learned Judge of the Court entered the following observations while proceeding to dismiss the writ petition:-
“In the opinion of the Court, mere non availability of OMR sheet would not be material, nor would cause any prejudice to the petitioner in filing of objection against the uploaded tentative answers on the website. The petitioner having appeared in the examination is expected to be aware of the questions and the correct answers, which could be examined by the Commission. Admittedly, the question paper was available with the petitioner. The answer key has been uploaded on the website. The petitioner cannot complain nor can contend that he was prevented from making objection to the uploaded answer key only because he was not having OMR sheet available with him. In the absence of rules/executive instructions providing for supply of OMR sheet the respondents otherwise were not expected to furnish OMR sheet, unless directed by law. Petitioner, moreover, cannot be permitted to raise grievance with regard to correctness of answers much after the selection process itself has been concluded. I am not inclined to entertain this petition now, particularly as large number of persons have already been selected and such persons are not before the Court. Such belated challenge to the correctness of answers, therefore, is not liable to be entertained. The petitioner's contention that answers uploaded were incorrect, therefore, need not be examined by this Court, on merits, at this stage.”
A special appeal preferred against that judgment also came to be dismissed by the Division Bench on 13 July 2018 in the following terms:-
“Suffice to mention that the Commission after receiving objections from other persons obtained expert report and found that questions no.65 and 68 in A series were not correct. Necessary steps as a consequence to the recommendations were taken and the final select list was declared on 16th August, 2016. The appellant-petitioner even then do not chose to agitate his cause. He preferred instant petition only in the year 2017 that is after completion of the process of selection. The appellant-petitioner if on any objection with regard to the questions asked, then he should have agitate his cause immediately on declaration of master key or at least after declaration of final result on 16th August, 2016. The delay occurred in the instant matter is fatal and in result the appeal is dismissed.”
Undeterred by those decisions, the petitioner invoked the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005 and called upon the respondents to submit "certified evidence in support of the opinion and views as formed by the experts". That application came to be rejected by the Information Commission holding that all requisite material which was in the possession of the respondent Commission had been duly provided to the petitioner.
On being queried, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that what the petitioner actually desired was proof in support of the correctness of the conclusion as arrived at by the experts. It is manifest from the contentions so raised that the present writ petition and the foray before the Information Commission was principally designed to seek a reopening of issues which had already been decided inter partes. The application as made was thoroughly misconceived and as held by the Chief Information Commissioner was liable to be rejected. That decision merits no interference.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 LA/-
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Shakti Kumar Mishra vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
26 August, 2019
Judges
  • Yashwant Varma
Advocates
  • Vivek Srivastava Avaneesh Kumar Shukla