Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23489 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shukhchand Respondent :- Registrar General High Court Allahabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Murari Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Goyal
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
This petition for writ is preferred to have a writ in the nature of mandamus to permit the petitioner to appear in the main examination of Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service-2018. Suffice to mention that the petitioner appeared in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Preliminary) Examination - 2018 and failed to qualify the same.
The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that some of the answer given as correct answer in the key declared by the respondents are wrong and if the correct answers be included, the petitioner would be a person qualified and that will make him entitle to participate in the main examination. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred two questions which are at Sl. Nos. 27 and 42 in the question paper (Annexure 6). The question no. 27 is that who was the first woman to become High Court Judge in India? As per the answer key declared by the respondents, the correct answer is Justice Anna Chandy whereas, as per the petitioner, Justice Leila Seth was the first woman to become High Court Judge. The answers suggested by the petitioner is apparently wrong as Justice Anna Chandy was the first woman to become High Court Judge in India. So far as the other question is concerned, the answer prescribed in the key is apparently correct. The question asked is that the tenant of a building governed by U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 can deposit rent before the court, if refused by landlord, under which provision? The suggested answers are Section 16, Section 21, Section 30(2) and none of the provisions referred. Under the Act of 1972, rent can be deposited, in the eventuality referred in the question, as per Section 30(1) of the Act aforesaid. Section 30(1) is not suggested as an answer and as such, the correct answer is "None of the above". The suggestion made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the correct answer should be Section 30(2) of the Act of 1972, is apparently wrong in light of the statute concerned.
The writ petition as such is having no merit, hence dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018 VMA (Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)