Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6798 of 2019 Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav,Shri Ram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The petitioner seeks re-evaluation of the answer scripts by the Examination Regulatory Authority of Assistant Teacher, 2018. It is admitted that the petitioner had never applied for re- evaluation pursuant to the notification dated 10.10.2018 even after getting a scanned copy of the answer scripts as he thought that he would not get any mark for cutting and overwriting in the answer scripts.
This Court in the judgement and order dated 30.10.2018 in Writ A No.18235 of 2018 (Aniruddh Narayan Shukla & others Vs. State of U.P. & others) has directed that the mark be awarded to the candidates for the correct answers despite the fact of there being cutting and overwriting in the answer scripts.
A perusal of the judgement of this Court indicates that a liberty had been granted to the petitioners therein to seek re-evaluation of their result, even after 30.10.2018 till date. The petitioner admittedly did not apply for re-evaluation on his own and for the first time has filed the present petition raising objection with regard to the correctness of evaluation of few answers in his answer scripts.
Noticing the observations of this Court in Aniruddh Narayan Shukla & others (supra) that the direction given therein would not be taken as a tool to the respondent to re-evaluate the answer scripts of the candidates to reopen new controversy and that the said judgement being a judgement in personam, no liberty can be granted to the petitioner to seek re-evaluation.
Moreover, every selection has to be brought to its logical end, it cannot be prolonged for convenience of any one or more candidate. The candidates who despite knowing their rights did not come forward, watching the proceedings sitting at the fence, cannot be allowed to take benefit, which had been granted in favour of few persons who were vigilant of their rights. The said principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the Case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347. The prayer of the petitioner herein to seek re-evaluation on the basis of the judgment and order dated 30.10.2018, passed by this Court, therefore, cannot be accepted.
The present petition is dismissed being misconceived.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Himanshu