MOHD AKRAM SIDDEEQUE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these bunch of writ petitions, we took Writ Petition No.51811 of 2013 as the lead petition and, on 26.09.2013, we passed a detailed order, which not only elucidates the controversy involved in these petitions but also seeks to partially resolve the same. As the said order is self-explanatory, it would be useful for us to reproduce the same, as under:

(2.) Pursuant to our order dated 26.09.2013, a fresh expert body was constituted, which submitted its report on 9.10.2013. The report was produced before us in sealed cover on 10.10.2013. As no decision was taken by the Commission on the report so submitted, we directed the matter to be taken up on 28.10.2013. On 28.10.2013, a short affidavit dated 27.10.2013 was filed on behalf of the Commission wherein, in paragraph 6 thereof, it was stated that the Commission convened a meeting on 24.10.2013 and took fresh decision as per the expert report by deleting 07 questions in total in law and 02 questions in General Knowledge. As it was not clear whether the deletions reported in the affidavit would be inclusive of the deletions made earlier, we, on 28.10.2013, passed the following order:

(3.) In pursuance of our order dated 28.10.2013, on 13.11.2013, on behalf of the Commission, affidavit dated 13.11.2013 was filed. In this affidavit it was clarified that before declaration of results the Commission, after inviting objections and obtaining expert report thereupon, had taken a decision to delete 2 questions in law paper and 4 questions in General Knowledge paper. Thereafter, pursuant to our order dated 26.09.2013, upon obtaining fresh expert report, 7 questions in law paper including 4 questions which we, by our order dated 26.09.2013, had suggested for deletion, were deleted along with 2 more questions in the General Knowledge paper. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit it was submitted that the deletion made after the fresh expert report was in addition to the deletions earlier made by the Commission. In the affidavit it was submitted that the decision to delete three questions in the law paper i.e. 99, 100 (incorrectly typed as 11) and 103 was taken to avoid further controversy as there were contradictory expert reports. Likewise, question no.16 in the General knowledge paper was deleted for there being contradictory expert reports. Whereas question nos.72 and 76 of the General Knowledge paper were maintained as they found support from the second report as well, though question no. 133 was deleted on the basis of the subsequent expert report.