Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 52 (ALL)

Dushyant Kumar v. State Of U. P.

2011-01-07

PANKAJ MITHAL, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA

body2011
JUDGMENT The present Special Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 28.10.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.43703 of 2003 filed by the appellants herein was dismissed on the ground that as per the records produced by the learned Standing Counsel regarding the marks obtained by the appellants in the Examination in question, the appellants could not be selected for admission in B.T.C. Course. 2. Pursuant to the order dated 26.11.2010, the case is listed today. 3. Sri Satyendra Babu Shukla, presently posted as Deputy Registrar, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Allahabad is personally present before the Court. He is identified by Sri P.P. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel. 4. A Short Counter Affidavit sworn by Sri Satyendra Babu Shukla, has been filed today on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the appeal. 5. Sri Satyendra Babu Shukla has produced before the Court the respective Answer-Sheets in respect of the appellant no.1 (Dushyant Kumar), the appellant no.2 (Rahul Kumar) and the appellant no.3 (Km. Rakesh Rana). Sri Shukla has also produced before the Court the Key Answers on the basis of which the Answer-Sheets were examined and marks were awarded in the Answer-Sheets in respect of the Written Test. 6. Sri Shukla has stated before the Court that the appellant no.1(Dushyant Kumar) attempted 148 questions out of 150 questions in the Written Test. Answers in respect of 97 questions were rightly given by him, and therefore, he ought to have been awarded 122 marks in the Written Test. However, in the Tabulation Register, his marks in the Written Test have been incorrectly entered as 120. 7. Sri Shukla has further stated that the appellant no.2 (Rahul Kumar) attempted 145 questions out of 150 questions in the Written Test. Answers in respect of 100 questions were rightly given by the appellant no.2, and therefore, he ought to have been awarded 129 marks in the Written Test. However, in the Tabulation Register, his marks in the Written Test have been incorrectly entered as 125. 8. Sri Shukla has further stated that the appellant no.3 (Km. Rakesh Rana) attempted 145 questions out of 150 questions in the Written Test. Answers in respect of 97 questions were rightly given by the appellant no.3, and she secured 125 marks in the Written Test. 8. Sri Shukla has further stated that the appellant no.3 (Km. Rakesh Rana) attempted 145 questions out of 150 questions in the Written Test. Answers in respect of 97 questions were rightly given by the appellant no.3, and she secured 125 marks in the Written Test. Therefore, Sri Shukla states that the marks in respect of the appellant no.3 have been correctly entered in the Tabulation Register. 9. As regards the appellant no.4 (Km Parul), Sri Shukla states that despite best efforts, Answer-Sheet in respect of the appellant no.4 could not be traced out, and therefore, it is not possible to produce the Answer-Sheet in respect of the appellant no.4 before the Court. 10. A perusal of the Short Counter Affidavit filed today shows that the facts, as stated by Sri Shukla today in respect of the appellant nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, have been incorporated in paragraph 7(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the said Short Counter Affidavit. 11. There is no dispute that the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in Male/Arts/OBC Category were 195.39, while the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in Male/Arts/General category were 201.20. Further, there is no dispute that the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in Female/Arts/OBC Category were 167.60. 12. As per the averments made in paragraph 7(i) of the aforesaid Short Counter Affidavit, after making correct evaluation of marks in respect of the appellant no.1(Dushyant Kumar) and awarding him 122 marks in the Written Test, the total marks awarded to the appellant no.1 would be 166.28. The appellant no.1 belonged to OBC Category, and as the last selected candidate in respect of such category got 195.39 marks, the appellant no.1 was not entitled to selection even after making correct evaluation of marks in respect of his Written Test. 13. Again, as per the averments made in paragraph 7(ii) of the aforesaid Short Counter Affidavit, after making correct evaluation of marks in respect of the appellant no.2 (Rahul Kumar) and awarding him 129 marks in the Written Test, the total marks awarded to the appellant no.2 would be 170.50. The appellant no.2, as per the averments made in the said paragraph 7(ii), belonged to the General Category. However, the said fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellant no.2, as per the averments made in the said paragraph 7(ii), belonged to the General Category. However, the said fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. Assuming the appellant no.2 (Rahul Kumar) as belonging to the OBC Category, the last selected candidate in respect of such category got 195.39 marks, and as such, the appellant no.2 was not entitled to selection even after making correct evaluation of marks in respect of his Written Test. 14. Again, as per the averments made in paragraph 7(iii) of the aforesaid Short Counter Affidavit, the appellant no.3 (Km Rakesh Rana) was rightly awarded 125 marks in her Written Test as shown in the Tabulation Register. The total marks awarded to the appellant no.3 were 157.41. The appellant no.3 belonged to Female/Arts/OBC Category, and the marks awarded to the last selected candidate in such category were 167.60, and thus, the appellant no.3 was not entitled to selection in the Examination in question. 15. As regards the appellant no.4 (Km Parul), it is averred in paragraph 7(iv) of the aforesaid Short Counter Affidavit that the said Satyendra Babu Shukla and his subordinate staff tried their best to trace out the Answer-Sheet of the appellant no.4 but they could not find out and locate the same in the record room. 16. As the Answer-Sheet in respect of the appellant no.4 (Km Parul) is not available for perusal of the Court and nothing has been brought before the Court on behalf of the appellant no.4 to show as to the number of questions attempted by the appellant no.4 correctly, there is no option but to assume that the marks as entered in the Tabulation Register were correct. As per the Tabulation Register, the appellant no.4 secured 103 marks in the Written Test and she secured 41.14 marks in respect of her academic qualification, and thus, the total marks secured by the appellant no.4 were recorded as 144.14 in the Tabulation Register. The appellant no.4 belonged to Female/Arts/OBC Category, and the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in such category were 167.60, and thus, the appellant no.4 was not entitled to selection in the Examination in question. 17. In view of the above, it is evident that none of the appellants was entitled to selection in the Examination in question. 18. The appellant no.4 belonged to Female/Arts/OBC Category, and the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in such category were 167.60, and thus, the appellant no.4 was not entitled to selection in the Examination in question. 17. In view of the above, it is evident that none of the appellants was entitled to selection in the Examination in question. 18. Therefore, the learned Single Judge by the Judgment dated 28.10.2003 rightly dismissed the Writ Petition, namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.43703 of 2003 filed by the appellants herein. The present Special Appeal thus lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the Special Appeal is dismissed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.