GYAN PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by his non-selection as an Assistant Professor in the subject of Chemistry by the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service Commission, Prayagraj ("the Commission" for short). Advertisement No. 50 dtd. 15/2/2021 was issued by the Commission inviting applications for selection of Assistant Professors, who would be appointed to aided nongovernment colleges, engaged in imparting higher education. The petitioner, apparently eligible for the post, applied in response. The selection was to be made through a written examination, followed by an interview of those candidates selected there. The petitioner was allotted Roll No. 5007000283 by the Commission and called to write his written examination on 30/10/2001. The petitioner appeared and participated in the written examination on the scheduled date, time and venue. It is his case that Question Booklet Series 'A' was allotted to him. The petitioner says that after he had appeared in the written examination, the provisional answer key was published by the Commission on 10/12/2021 and objections were invited to the key answers by the candidates, on or before 18/12/2021. The date for objections to the key answers was extended. The provisional answer key has been placed on record by the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner had objections with regard to the answers shown in the provisional answer key to Questions Nos. 37, 38 and 44 of Question Booklet Series 'A'. He submitted objections online to the Commission on 13/12/2021, that is to say, within time. The petitioner has also annexed his objections as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. The Commission issued a revised and final answer key on 11/2/2022, after considering objections by the candidates. Objections to two questions, that is to say, Questions Nos. 9 and 58 of Question Booklet Series 'A' were sustained and the questions, deleted. In consequence, common marks were allotted to all candidates, including the petitioner, in relation to the aforesaid Questions. But, the petitioner's grievance is that his answers at the written examination were evaluated without deleting the impugned key answers, to which he had objected, carried in Question Booklet Series 'A'. The result of the written examination was declared on 17/2/2022, wherein the petitioner was declared successful and called for interview. It is asserted that different cut-off marks for the purpose of interview category wise (i.e. Gen., OBC, SC etc.) were declared by the Commission. The petitioner participated in the interview on 26/3/2022 held by the Commission. The final select list (common list) was declared by the Commission on 13/5/2022 for the post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry (Subject Code 70). The final list was declared based on the marks earned in the written examination and the ensuing interview by the Commission, but the entire selection exercise was carried out without rectifying the three incorrect key answers, to which the petitioner had objected, to wit, key answers to Questions Nos. 37, 38 and 44 of Question Booklet Series 'A'.

(3.) It is the petitioner's case that he belongs to the Other Backward Class ("OBC" for short) Category and had applied in the relevant category for the post in question. The petitioner says that he had secured 138.72 marks in the written test in the OBC Category and the cut-off marks for the OBC Category, entitling a candidate to interview, was 134.64. It is urged that each of the questions carried two marks. The two questions that were acknowledged as wrong on objections by other candidates, led to an addition of 2.04 marks to the petitioner's score in the written examination. It is the petitioner's assertion that he calculated his score, as per the revised answer key, comparing it to his Optical Mark Recognition ("OMR" for short) Sheet for all that he had correctly answered. It shows that he answered 68 questions correctly, to which 2.04 marks for the wrong questions were added, leading him to earn 138.72 marks in the written examination. There is some grievance made to the effect that two candidates, to wit, Naveen Prakash Verma (Roll No. 5007001169) and Sanjeev Kumar (Roll No. 5007000563) who had also applied under the OBC Category, were selected and shown at Serial No. 36 and 37 of the impugned final selection list dtd. 13/5/2020. But, the petitioner was arbitrarily excluded. The petitioner says that in case the three impugned answers in the answer key, to which he had objected when the provisional key was published, were rectified, upon proper determination by experts, with the aid of renowned textbooks, it would entitle him to the addition of three marks. If that were done, he would be selected.