ROHIT SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of the writ petitions have been filed by thousands of candidates raising a challenge to the key answers in the final answer key published on 08.05.2020 in an examination conducted on 06.01.2019.The recruitment was held to fill up vacancies of the post of Assistant Teachers in different basic schools run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad in the State of U.P. pursuant to a notification dated 01.12.2018. The present set of writ petitions are second round of litigation by the candidates who seek to challenge the key answers displayed by the examining body after entertaining the objections raised by several candidates. The writ petitions filed in the month of May' 2020 and afterwards tagged in the present bunch, had been heard on 09.02.2021. At the very inception of the hearing, the Court had directed the counsels for the petitioners to sit together and find out the specific number of questions with reference to the booklet series ''A', key answers of which are subject matter of challenge in the present bunch.

(2.) At the time of hearing, the counsels for the petitioners had given the number of the questions of the booklet question series ''A' with corresponding questions of the booklet series ''B', ''C' and ''D', key answers of which are challenged as being incorrect. The question numbers and reference to the material which is the basis of challenge to the correctness of the key answers would be referred at the appropriate stage of the judgement.

(3.) However, before doing the same, it would be pertinent to note that the petitioners herein claim that they had submitted their objections to the answer key displayed by the examining body on 08.01.2019 but they were not adverted to. Much emphasis had been laid to the doubt expressed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Lucknow Bench) in the judgement and order dated 03.06.2020 in Service Single No.8056 of 2020 (Rishabh Mishra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) connected with 30 others writ petitions to support their submissions by the counsels for the petitioners on the correctness of the key answers under challenge, and it was pressed that in view of the said observations directions be issued for fresh evaluation by the experts.