Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAI VINDRA SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jai Vindra Singh v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - A No. 20550 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7753 (17 April 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon. Tarun Agarwala,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K.Yadav for the Selection Board.

The petitioner applied for the post of trained Graduate Teachers in Science as per the advertisement issued by the Selection Board in October,2005. The petitioner appeared in the written examination. The Selection Board declared the result on 4.4.2006 but his name did not appear in the result that was declared. Upon inquiry, it was found, that the petitioner's answer sheet was not evaluated on account of the fact, that he did not mention the series of the booklet that was provided to him. Consequently, the petitioner has filed the writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to evaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner.

Sri A.K.Yadav, the learned counsel for the Selection Board, upon the instructions received by him, submits that the answer sheet was evaluated through a computer process and that the petitioner's answer sheet was not evaluated on account of the fact that he did not mention the series in the booklet that was supplied to him. It has been stated at the Bar that four types of booklets are supplied, namely, A, B, C and D and the number of that series had to be indicated in the booklet. Since the particular series  was not indicated in the booklet the computer could not evaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner.

In my opinion,  non-indication of the alphabet of the booklet series  in the answer sheet was, a mere irregularity which can be rectified manually by the respondents for the purpose of feeding the answer sheet in the computer for the evaluation of the result. The respondents could not deny the evaluation of the examination on this score. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed and I direct the Selection Board to evaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner of the examination held on 15.1.2006 and declare its result within two weeks from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.

Dated: 17.4.2006

AKJ.(WP 20550/06)


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.