Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1010 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shalini Sona Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for the following relief:-
"(i) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to revisit the petitioner's result having Roll No.0820502244 UPTET-2018 (Upper Primary Level) after evaluating/awarding the marks for correct answers of Language-II i.e. English of Part-III especially question nos.61-90."
In paragraph 14 of the writ petition it is contended by the petitioner that due to inadvertent mistake she does not fill up the circle/bubble of language-English in the OMR sheet.
The law in this connection is well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors. Vs. B. M. Vijaya Shankar and Ors. reported at AIR 1992 SC 952. The Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the Competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the Commission for public service in strict secrecy to get the best brain. It was held that the instructions contained in the answer- sheet should be complied with in its letter and spirit. The operative portion of the aforesaid judgement is quoted below:-
"Competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the Commission for public service in strict secrecy to get the best brain. Public interest requires no compromise on it. Any violation of it should be visited strictly. Absence of any expectation of hearing in matters which do not affect any interest and call for immediate action, such as the present one, where it would have delayed declaration of list of other candidates which would have been more unfair and unjust are rare but well recognised exceptions to the rule of natural justice. It cannot be equated with where a student is found copying in the examination or an inference arises against him for copying due to similarity in answers of number of other candidates or he is charged with misconduct or misbehavior. Direction not to write roll number was clear and explicit. It was printed on the first page of every answer book. Once it was violated the issue of bonafide and honest mistake did not arise. Its consequences, even, if not provided did not make any difference in law. The action could not be characterised as arbitrary. It was not denial of equal opportunity. The reverse may be true."
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, no relief could be granted to the petitioner.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Pramod Tripathi