Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1594 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Rohit Bhatt

2022-09-29

RAJESH BINDAL, VIKRAM D.CHAUHAN

body2022
ORDER : 1. The present special appeal is preferred by the Appellants challenging the judgement and order dated September 8, 2020 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5910 of 2020 (Rohit Bhatt Vs. State of U.P. and others) and judgement and order dated July 30, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Review Application No. 158 of 2021. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent No.1-petitioner secured admission in BTC Training Course 2015 in Jaymurti College Nagla Ball, Sirsaganj, Firozabad. The respondent No.1-petitioner passed the first semester examination. Thereafter the respondent No.1-petitioner has also passed the second semester written exam of BTC Training Course (Batch 2015) and was sent for internship on August 31, 2017 to Primary School Chandari, Vikas Khand Madanpur, Firozabad. The Respondent No.1-petitioner appeared before aforesaid college on September 4, 2017 and completed his internship on October 13, 2017. Result of internship was declared on October 13, 2017 and respondent No.1-petitioner obtained 97/100 marks. The Respondent No.1-petitioner on October 13, 2017 submitted the above-mentioned result in the office of the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Firozabad and thereafter the result of the second semester of BTC Course-2015 was declared on March 21, 2018, in which the respondent No.1-petitioner was found unsuccessful due to absence in internship. 3. Thereafter, respondent No.1-petitioner on enquiry came to know that the marks of internship of second semester was not available with the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Firozabad (Appellant No.4) although the same was submitted on October 13, 2017. On September 19, 2018, respondent No.1-petitioner submitted an application along with the photocopy of the result of the internship of second semester and other documents before the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad (Appellant No.2), however, the result of the respondent No.1-petitioner was not corrected by the respondent authorities. 4. On October 28, 2018, Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Firozabad (Appellant No.4) has issued a letter to the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad (Appellant No.2) and informed that the marks of the respondent No.1-petitioner of the internship of second semester of BTC 2015 have not been shown in the marksheet and requested to correct the marks of the respondent No.1-petitioner in respect of second semester internship and issue a correct mark sheet to the respondent No.1-petitioner. 5. 5. In the meantime, the Appellants invited online application for Primary Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2019. The last date for submission of the online application was December 22, 2018. The respondent No.1-petitioner applied for the Primary Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2019. 6. There was inaction on the part of Appellants in issuing corrected mark sheet and as such the respondent No.1-petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.89 of 2019 (Rohit Bhatt Vs. State of U.P. and others) before this Court. On January 4, 2019 an order was passed in Writ Petition No. 89 of 2019 as an interim measure permitting the respondent No.1-petitioner to provisionally appear in the Primary Teachers Recruitment Examination 2019. 7. In compliance of the above-mentioned order dated January 4, 2019 passed by this Court, respondent No.1-petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination of Primary Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2019 on January 6, 2019. The result of the aforesaid examination was declared on May 12, 2020 in which the result of the respondent No.1-petitioner has not been shown due to pendency of the above-mentioned writ petition before this Court. 8. Under the circumstances, respondent No.1-petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 5910 of 2020 before this Court seeking mandamus commanding the respondents to declare the result of the respondent No.1-petitioner in respect of the examination of Primary Teachers Recruitment Examination 2019 and in case the respondent No.1-petitioner is successful in the aforesaid examination, he may be permitted to participate in selection proceedings of the primary teachers in Uttar Pradesh. 9. In the meantime, Appellants have issued the corrected mark sheet to the respondent No.1-petitioner in respect of BTC Course-2015 in which the respondent No.1-petitioner has been shown to have passed. 10. The above-mentioned Writ Petition No.5910 of 2020 along with Writ Petition No.89 of 2019 was finally decided by impugned judgment and order dated September 8, 2020 with the direction that as the mark sheet has been issued and respondent No.1-petitioner has appeared in the examination and result has also been declared, further steps shall be taken in terms of the result so declared. It is further directed that steps shall be taken in accordance with result declared in respect of the respondent No.1-petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the application before the respondent – Appellant No. 3. 11. It is further directed that steps shall be taken in accordance with result declared in respect of the respondent No.1-petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the application before the respondent – Appellant No. 3. 11. It is submitted on behalf of Appellants that the respondent No.1-petitioner was declared unsuccessful in the training course in respect of second semester and the result of the fourth semester of the BTC training course was declared on December 12, 2018 and the net result of the total semester of the respondent No.1-petitioner concluded to have failed and as such it is argued that on the last date for submission of the online application in respect of Primary Teachers Recruitment Examination 2019, respondent No.1-petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification as prescribed under the relevant rule. It is also submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the opposite party has submitted a false declaration in respect of the result of BTC Training Course at the time of submission of online form. 12. It is submitted on behalf of Respondent no.1 that the marks of the internship was not declared by the Appellants despite the fact that the respondent No.1-petitioner successfully completed the internship for the second semester and the marks were duly forwarded to the concerned authority. It is submitted that the mistake of not taking into consideration the marks in the internship of second semester is at the behest of the Appellants for which the respondent No.1-petitioner cannot be faulted and any such corrected mark sheet being issued to the respondent No.1-petitioner subsequently would relate back to the date of the result. 13. The result of BTC examination was declared on March 21, 2018 in which the respondent No.1-petitioner was shown as unsuccessful on account of absence in the internship of second semester despite the fact that the respondent No.1-petitioner had successfully completed the internship and the marks were also submitted on October 13, 2017. The respondent No.1-petitioner thereafter had applied before the authority concerned for issuance of corrected mark sheet by showing the marks of the respondent No.1-petitioner in respect of internship of second semester in BTC course. It is not dispute between the parties that the respondent No.1-petitioner would have passed the BTC course in case the aforesaid marks of internship would have been included in the result prepared by the authority concerned. It is not dispute between the parties that the respondent No.1-petitioner would have passed the BTC course in case the aforesaid marks of internship would have been included in the result prepared by the authority concerned. 14. The mistake in preparation of the result of the BTC course was at the behest of the Appellant. Although respondent No.1-petitioner had successfully completed the internship in the second semester of the BTC course and thereafter has further successfully completed the remaining semesters, when the result of the BTC course was declared, the respondent No.1-petitioner was shown as failed solely on account of non consideration of the marks obtained by the respondent No.1-petitioner in internship in second semester. On October 28, 2018 the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Firozabad has written a letter to the Examination Regulatory Authority, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad (Appellant No.2) for issuance of the corrected mark sheet by including the marks already obtained by the respondent No.1-petitioner in the internship completed in the second semester. 15. It is not the case of the Appellants that on account of any fraud or misrepresentation, respondent No.1-petitioner has claimed the eligibility qualification in the Primary Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2015. The mistake in not considering the marks of internship of second semester by the Appellants was brought to the notice of the examining body immediately by the respondent No.1-petitioner. 16. It is further not in dispute that subsequent to the cut off date the mark sheet of the respondent No.1-petitioner has been corrected by the Appellants thereby accepting the mistake in issuance of the earlier mark sheet. The respondent No.1-petitioner had duly passed the BTC course before cut off date, however, on account of mistake, the respondent No.1-petitioner was declared as failed by the Appellants. The mistake is attributable to the Appellants and for such a mistake the respondent No.1-petitioner cannot be made to suffer. 17. The Appellants have submitted that the respondent No.1-petitioner had filed a false declaration in the application form for Primary Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2019 as on the cut off date the respondent No.1-petitioner did not have prescribed qualification for applying in the aforesaid examination. In this respect, it is to be noted that prior to the cut off date the mistake/error in the result of BTC Course 2015 of the respondent No.1-petitioner was brought to the notice of the Appellants by the respondent No.1-petitioner. In this respect, it is to be noted that prior to the cut off date the mistake/error in the result of BTC Course 2015 of the respondent No.1-petitioner was brought to the notice of the Appellants by the respondent No.1-petitioner. Appellant No.4 by his communication dated October 28, 2018 has acknowledged the aforesaid mistake and has recommended to Appellant No.2 for issuance of the corrected mark sheet. The delay in correction of the mark sheet of the respondent No.1-petitioner is at the behest of the Appellants and for no fault of the respondent No.1-petitioner, the respondent No.1-petitioner candidature for Primary Teachers Recruitment Examination, 2019 cannot be faulted. Once the respondent No.1-petitioner has duly passed the BTC course on the relevant date. The Appellants cannot be permitted to take benefit of their own mistake and subsequently objected to the candidature of the respondent No.1-petitioner for Primary Teachers Recruitment Examination 2019. 18. In the result, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and as such the present Special Appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.