Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1844 (ALL)

ALKA MISHRA v. STATE OF U. P

2018-08-24

B.AMIT STHALEKAR, JAYANT BANERJI

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Jayant Banerji, J.—This writ petition has been filed for the following main prayer : “(1) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to appear before the Interview Board to the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry) on the basis of the advertisement No. 46/2014 and consider her candidature to the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry).” 2. Heard Shri Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in pursuance of a notification issued by the respondent No. 2-U.P. Higher Education Services Commission (the Commission), the petitioner, who is duly qualified, applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Chemistry) on 6 April 2014. She appeared for the written examination on the basis of the Admit Card issued by the Commission and the result of the written examination was declared on 20 July 2016 wherein the petitioner was declared successful. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued an interview letter on 18 March 2017 to appear before the Interview Board on 28 March 2017. However, on 23 March 2017, a message was sent by the Commission on the mobile of the petitioner that the interview has been postponed and the next date will be announced later. 4. It is stated that thereafter, the interview was notified to be held from 18 July 2018 to 10 August 2018 to the post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry but the roll number of the petitioner did not find place in the list of candidates to be interviewed. The petitioner tried to contact the Commission to find out the reason for exclusion of her name from the interview but no reply was received and, hence, she filed the instant writ petition. 5. The petitioner tried to contact the Commission to find out the reason for exclusion of her name from the interview but no reply was received and, hence, she filed the instant writ petition. 5. In the short counter-affidavit that has been filed on behalf of the Commission, it has been stated that though the petitioner had appeared in the written examination and was declared successful on 20 July 2016, the result itself was challenged before the High Court by Niraj Kumar Singh and another in writ petitions, the leading one being Writ-A No. 12344 of 2017 and by means of the judgment and order dated 28 April 2017, this Court directed the Commission to re-evaluate the answer books of the candidates who appeared in the third and fourth phase of the examinations, particularly the Question No. 4 of the booklet related to the subject of General Knowledge. Thus, on re-evaluation of the answer books of candidates in the subject of Chemistry, the petitioner and 24 other candidates went out of the merit list on being shortlisted by the Commission. It is stated that the shortlisting of the candidates for 20 subjects including that of Chemistry was done by the Commission as per the directions given by this Court in its judgment. The petitioner secured less than the cut off marks of 105.15 for interview against 69 unreserved category posts and as such she was not called for interview. 6. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in Writ-A No. 12344 of 2017 (Niraj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.and others) that has been enclosed as Annexure-SCA-1 to the short counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission reveals that with regard to the same written examination conducted by the Commission in pursuance of Advertisement No. 46, dated 19 March 2014, a writ petition was filed. The question No. 4 relating to the general knowledge paper was as under : “Q.4. Who is the brand ambassador of BSNL (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited) ? (a) Abhishek Bachchan. (b) Amitabh Bachchan. (c) Deepika Padukone. (d) None of the above.” 7. In that case, the petitioner’s contention was that the correct answer was “none of the above” i.e. ‘Option (d)’. However, according to the Commission, the correct answer was ‘Deepika Padukone’ i.e. ‘Option (c)’. Who is the brand ambassador of BSNL (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited) ? (a) Abhishek Bachchan. (b) Amitabh Bachchan. (c) Deepika Padukone. (d) None of the above.” 7. In that case, the petitioner’s contention was that the correct answer was “none of the above” i.e. ‘Option (d)’. However, according to the Commission, the correct answer was ‘Deepika Padukone’ i.e. ‘Option (c)’. The Court found that ‘Option (d)’ was the correct answer and proceeded to direct the Commission for re-examining/re-evaluating the answer-sheets of all the candidates treating ‘Option (d)’ of Question No. 4 of General Knowledge of ‘Series B’ question booklet as the correct answer. The operative part of the judgment dated 28 April 2017 is as under : “For all the reasons recorded above both the writ petitions succeeds and are allowed. Writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent U.P. Public Service Commission to get the answer-sheets of all the candidates re-examined/re-evaluated treating option-(d) of question No. 4 of General Knowledge of Series-B question booklet and declare the result accordingly and also re-evaluate the answer-sheets of the candidates who are applicants for the post of Lecturer in Law by treating option-(d) as the correct answer of question No. 4 of Series-A question booklet and thereafter declare the result. Any candidate who is now selected on the basis of this re-evaluated result and has not been interviewed will be interviewed afresh and thereafter final results be published. It is further provided that till such time the Commission carries out the exercise as directed above and declares final result afresh, the State Government shall not proceed in the matter of issuing appointment letters. It would be in the interest of the Commission, the State and also the candidates that the exercise for re-evaluation as directed above is taken up at the earliest and the Commission would be well advised to conclude the fresh exercise and declare the final result afresh as soon as possible. Writ petitions are allowed as above." 8. Thus, the contention of the Commission that the answer books of all the candidates who participated in the third and fourth phase of examinations were re-evaluated and in Chemistry subject, the petitioner and 24 other candidates went out of the merit list on being shortlisted by the Commission, has to be viewed in light of the aforesaid judgment. 9. Thus, the contention of the Commission that the answer books of all the candidates who participated in the third and fourth phase of examinations were re-evaluated and in Chemistry subject, the petitioner and 24 other candidates went out of the merit list on being shortlisted by the Commission, has to be viewed in light of the aforesaid judgment. 9. The petitioner had secured less than the cut off marks of 105.15 for interview against 69 unreserved category posts and as such, she was not called for interview. These averments that are made in paragraphs 7, 9 and 11 of the short counter-affidavit have not been denied by the petitioner in the rejoinder-affidavit. It has merely been stated that the exclusion of the petitioner from the list of candidates qualified for interview is illegal and unjustified. It was vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year 2015, when the written examination was held, BSNL (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited) had no brand ambassador. He has relied upon on certain information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 that has been enclosed as Annexure-RA-1 to the rejoinder-affidavit. 10. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in the options that were mentioned with regard to the question No. 4 aforesaid, it was ‘Option (d)’ that was correct and the same was held to be so by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ-A No. 12344 of 2017 filed by Niraj Kumar Singh. It is not the contention of the petitioner that the re-evaluation conducted by the Commission with respect to the answer-sheet of the petitioner has been wrongly done or that there is any error in the re-evaluation. All that has been stated is that the exclusion of the petitioner from the merit list of candidates qualified for interview is illegal and unjustified. This contention of the petitioner has not been substantiated. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted to the petitioner. 12. This writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.