HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4550 of 2016
Petitioner :- Ummatuz Zehra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rijwan Ali Akhtar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner had applied online in Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test-2013 (Primary Language) under the General category.
In the examination, she was supplied Question Booklet No. 952346 of Question Booklet Series 'B'. According to the petitioner, there were 90 multiple choice type questions in the said question booklet and each question was assigned 1 (one) mark.
It is stated that after the examination it was found that some of the answers of Question Booklet Series 'A', 'B' and 'C' were wrong, with the result that the marks were incorrectly allotted to the candidates.
This matter came to be considered by this Court at Lucknow Bench in the case of Kadeer Ahmad Khan & others v. State of U.P. and another, Misc. Single No. 6560 of 2013. In the said case, the Court was satisfied that Question No. 57 of 'C' series and Question No. 39 of 'B' series have been wrongly answered by the key of the respondents. Accordingly, the Court passed an interim order on 24th October, 2013 that the petitioners therein shall be treated as eligible in T.E.T. Examination by giving one mark for the aforesaid questions. The said writ petition has been allowed by this Court on 07th July, 2014 with the following observations:
"...As per counter-affidavit, answers 5, 8, 7 and 47 of 'A' series, 29, 2, 39 and 65 of 'B' series, 23, 26, 57 and 89 of 'C' series and 11, 19, 49, and 78 of 'D' series, were wrongly shown and evaluated, while answers of rest of the questions were correct one question was wrongly printed. This has affected the result materially.
It is submitted that on account of wrong valuation, the petitioners have been declared unsuccessful marring their chance of employment. Counter-affidavit has been filed annexing therewith an order issued by Secretary Smt. Neena Srivastava, Secretary, Examination Controlling Authority. In the counter-affidavit, it has been admitted that some mistakes did occur, as such opinion of subject experts was sought and after seeking opinion of subject experts result has been altered accordingly. Copy of the letter written by Secretary, Examination Controlling Authority dated 28.10.2013 has been annexed as Annexure No. CA-3 to the counter-affidavit.
Accordingly, four questions were found to be wrongly evaluated and one question was wrongly put in the paper. Since subject expert has now clarified the position as contained in the letter of Secretary, Examining Body, petitioners have made out a case for interference.
In view of the above discussions, I direct the respondent no. 2 to declare the petitioners' result in accordance with the opinion given by subject experts as mentioned in the letter dated 28.10.2013, within two weeks from today.
Both the writ petitions stand allowed."�
It is stated that the petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of the said judgment as the petitioner was supplied Question Booklet Series 'B', wherein two questions, being Question Nos. 39 and 65 were wrongly evaluated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to some other orders of this Court passed in the similar facts.
Lastly it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that submission of online application for Urdu teacher is commencing from 05th February, 2016 and since the petitioner has been declared ineligible by one mark and in case her mark is increased in the light of the judgment of this Court, referred above, the petitioner would be eligible to submit her online form on 05th February, 2016.
The petitioner states that she has made a recent representation to the respondent no. 4 on 27th January, 2016 ventilating her grievance but with no result.
The petitioner has made out a prima facie case.�
Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the petitioner's grievance be considered by the respondent no. 4 in the light of the judgment of Writ Petition No. 6560 of 2013 (supra).
Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, the petitioner is permitted to submit her online application form on 05th February, 2016 for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu). A further direction is issued to respondent no. 4 to decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6560 of 2013 (supra) within two weeks. The order so passed shall be placed before this Court on the next date of listing.
Put up this case on 26th February, 2016 in the additional cause list.
Order Date :- 2.2.2016
SKT/-
Sponsored links :
ताज़ा खबरें - प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती Breaking News: सरकारी नौकरी - Army /Bank /CPSU /Defence /Faculty /Non-teaching /Police /PSC /Special recruitment drive /SSC /Stenographer /Teaching Jobs /Trainee / UPSC
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4550 of 2016
Petitioner :- Ummatuz Zehra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rijwan Ali Akhtar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner had applied online in Uttar Pradesh Teacher Eligibility Test-2013 (Primary Language) under the General category.
In the examination, she was supplied Question Booklet No. 952346 of Question Booklet Series 'B'. According to the petitioner, there were 90 multiple choice type questions in the said question booklet and each question was assigned 1 (one) mark.
It is stated that after the examination it was found that some of the answers of Question Booklet Series 'A', 'B' and 'C' were wrong, with the result that the marks were incorrectly allotted to the candidates.
This matter came to be considered by this Court at Lucknow Bench in the case of Kadeer Ahmad Khan & others v. State of U.P. and another, Misc. Single No. 6560 of 2013. In the said case, the Court was satisfied that Question No. 57 of 'C' series and Question No. 39 of 'B' series have been wrongly answered by the key of the respondents. Accordingly, the Court passed an interim order on 24th October, 2013 that the petitioners therein shall be treated as eligible in T.E.T. Examination by giving one mark for the aforesaid questions. The said writ petition has been allowed by this Court on 07th July, 2014 with the following observations:
"...As per counter-affidavit, answers 5, 8, 7 and 47 of 'A' series, 29, 2, 39 and 65 of 'B' series, 23, 26, 57 and 89 of 'C' series and 11, 19, 49, and 78 of 'D' series, were wrongly shown and evaluated, while answers of rest of the questions were correct one question was wrongly printed. This has affected the result materially.
It is submitted that on account of wrong valuation, the petitioners have been declared unsuccessful marring their chance of employment. Counter-affidavit has been filed annexing therewith an order issued by Secretary Smt. Neena Srivastava, Secretary, Examination Controlling Authority. In the counter-affidavit, it has been admitted that some mistakes did occur, as such opinion of subject experts was sought and after seeking opinion of subject experts result has been altered accordingly. Copy of the letter written by Secretary, Examination Controlling Authority dated 28.10.2013 has been annexed as Annexure No. CA-3 to the counter-affidavit.
Accordingly, four questions were found to be wrongly evaluated and one question was wrongly put in the paper. Since subject expert has now clarified the position as contained in the letter of Secretary, Examining Body, petitioners have made out a case for interference.
In view of the above discussions, I direct the respondent no. 2 to declare the petitioners' result in accordance with the opinion given by subject experts as mentioned in the letter dated 28.10.2013, within two weeks from today.
Both the writ petitions stand allowed."�
It is stated that the petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of the said judgment as the petitioner was supplied Question Booklet Series 'B', wherein two questions, being Question Nos. 39 and 65 were wrongly evaluated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to some other orders of this Court passed in the similar facts.
Lastly it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that submission of online application for Urdu teacher is commencing from 05th February, 2016 and since the petitioner has been declared ineligible by one mark and in case her mark is increased in the light of the judgment of this Court, referred above, the petitioner would be eligible to submit her online form on 05th February, 2016.
The petitioner states that she has made a recent representation to the respondent no. 4 on 27th January, 2016 ventilating her grievance but with no result.
The petitioner has made out a prima facie case.�
Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the petitioner's grievance be considered by the respondent no. 4 in the light of the judgment of Writ Petition No. 6560 of 2013 (supra).
Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, the petitioner is permitted to submit her online application form on 05th February, 2016 for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu). A further direction is issued to respondent no. 4 to decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6560 of 2013 (supra) within two weeks. The order so passed shall be placed before this Court on the next date of listing.
Put up this case on 26th February, 2016 in the additional cause list.
Order Date :- 2.2.2016
SKT/-
Sponsored links :
ताज़ा खबरें - प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती Breaking News: सरकारी नौकरी - Army /Bank /CPSU /Defence /Faculty /Non-teaching /Police /PSC /Special recruitment drive /SSC /Stenographer /Teaching Jobs /Trainee / UPSC