Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 602 (ALL)

Rana Pratap Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-02-19

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT Yashwant Varma, J. Nearly three years after the TET Examination 2011, the appellant filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Secretary of the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad to issue a "corrected/amended marksheet/resultsheet" to the appellant. The second relief was a mandamus to permit the appellant to appear for counselling. 2. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the second respondent in which it was stated that in pursuance of the directions which were issued by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a judgment delivered on 16 December 2011 in Lalit Mohan Singh vs. State of U.P., the Board re-examined the OMR sheets of all the candidates and it was found that the appellant was absent at the examination. The specific stand in the counter affidavit filed by the Board was that the OMR sheets were examined in pursuance of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Lalit Mohan Singh (supra) on 16 December 2011. Moreover, it was further stated that it has been found that the agency which was entrusted with the work of the examination was engaged in irregularities following which Case Crime No. 675 of 2011 under Sections 410, 420 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been registered. The OMR sheets are presently sealed. The learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition holding that, at the present stage, the relief as sought by the appellant could not be granted. However, it has been observed that since the criminal proceedings are pending, an order may be passed by the authority concerned after OMR sheet is available and after the records are available to the authority. 3. In the case of the appellant, it was found that he was absent at the examination. At this stage, there is nothing before the Court to disbelieve the statement. Hence, the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted particularly having due regard to the fact that the appellant moved a writ petition in 2014 seeking a correction of his result of the TET Examination of 2011. At this stage, there is nothing before the Court to disbelieve the statement. Hence, the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted particularly having due regard to the fact that the appellant moved a writ petition in 2014 seeking a correction of his result of the TET Examination of 2011. The directions of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the authority shall pass an appropriate order after verifying the OMR sheet available and after the records are made available will sufficiently protect the interest of the appellant. No further directions are accordingly necessary. However, we leave it open to the appellant to pursue the appropriate remedies as available in law in respect of the inspection of the OMR sheet. 4. The special appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.