RAJESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A writ petition Writ-A No. 17329 of 2012, Om Prakash Yadav v. State of U.P. and another. under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed by the third respondent. The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board the Board had advertised vacancies for appointment on the posts of Trained Graduate Teachers in the subject of Art, on 15 January 2009. 361 vacancies were advertised, of which 100 were reserved for Other Backward Classes3 category and 143 for Scheduled Caste candidates. The rest of the posts were to be filled up through general category candidates. The third respondent applied under the OBC category and appeared at the written examination, which was held by the Board on 20 September 2009. The third respondent stated that he was declared successful at the written examination and appeared at an interview after being called by the Board. The grievance of the third respondent pertained to the written examination for the subject of Art which consisted of 125 questions. According to the third respondent, 106 questions were answered correctly by him. Since the total marks assigned for 125 questions were 425, the third respondent averred that each question carried 3.4 marks and he would be entitled to 360.40 marks. The third respondent was informed that cut off marks in the final selection for OBC category was 399.20 marks. The third respondent obtained 343.40 marks in the written examination and 48 marks in the interview thus, securing a total of 391.40 marks. The third respondent failed to make the cut off by a difference of 7.80 marks and was not selected in the OBC category. According to the third respondent, it was found that his answers to 101 questions were found to be correct whereas, his understanding was that his answers of 106 questions were absolutely correct. The case of the third respondent was that on that basis he would have been entitled to 360.40 marks and if 48 marks secured in the interview were added, he would be entitled to 408.40 marks, which was above the cut off.

(2.) In paragraph 17 of the writ petition there was a general allegation of certain irregularities which had taken place in the Commission resulting in litigation pending before this Court, where it was found that either wrong questions had been framed or marks had been wrongly awarded. In paragraph 20 of the writ petition it is averred that Question No. 49 was wrongly framed and hence, it was urged that the total marks should be allotted on the basis of 124 questions and not 125 questions.

(3.) On this basis, the reliefs which the third respondent sought in the writ petition were in the following terms: