Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Vinod Kumar Tripathi v. State Of Up Thru' Secy. (Home) And Others - WRIT - A No. 62126 of 2005 [2007] RD-AH 7587 (24 April 2007)


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).



Court No. 33


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 62126 of 2005

Vinod Kumar Tripathi and others vs State of U.P. and others

Connected with

Writ Petition Nos. 61706/05, 62498/05, 62596/05, 62829/05, 63188/05, 63314/05, 62377/05, 63440/05, 63970/05, 63986/05, 64270/05, 64371/05, 64479/05, 64498/05, 64676/05, 64709/05, 64807/05, 64937/05, 65128/05, 65720-05, 66234/05, 66191/05, 66232/05, 66705/05, 61115/05, 74803/05, 13554/05, 55164/05, 35341/03, 66828/05, 66833/05, 66876/05, 65598/05, 66957/05, 67639/05, 67953/05, 68276/05, 70940/05, 71007/05, 71194/05, 71199/05, 71755/05, 72685/05, 72911/05, 72940/05, 73597/05, 74081/05, 74215/05, 70650/05, 74319/05, 74006/05, 73854/05, 73467/05, 75109/05, 75471/05, 75529/05, 70642/05, 64955/05, 1821/06, 2960/06, 4358/06, 3154/06, 63510/06, 53057/06, 55838/06, 22929/06, 9645/06, 69680/06, 27306/06, 38721/06, 39672/06, 48047/06, 48473/06, 48844/06, 50195/06, 50385/06, 50407/06, 60974/06, 71336/06, 71160/05, 71184/06, 67582/06, 20826/06, 22494/06, 23265/06, 63991/06, 67232/06, 67624/06, 67781/06, 67873/06, 67888/06, 67966/06, 67997/06, 68192/06, 69334/06, 70302/06, 70628/06, 70419/06, 70794/06, 70926/06


This bunch of writ petitions (with Writ Petition No. 62126 of 2005 as leading petition) has been filed with the principal prayer for quashing the select list dated 3rd September, 2005 prepared by the U.P. Police/P.A.C. Recruitment Board, Police Head Quarter, Allahabad in respect of appointments to be made on the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police)/Platoon Commander, P.A.C.

Sri Shailendra Advocate along with large number of other counsels have been heard on behalf of petitioners.  The Advocate General Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, Chief Standing Counsel Sri C.B. Yadav as well as Additional Chief Standing Counsel Sri Amit Sthalekar have been heard on behalf of the State authorities. Private respondents (selected candidates) are represented by Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajesh Pratap Singh as well as Sri V. K. Singh Senior Advocate and other counsels.

In supplementary counter affidavit no. 3 dated 30th October, 2006, filed by Sri Brij Mohan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Legal Cell U.P. Police Head Quarter, Allahabad, it has specifically been stated that the information about the pendency of the present writ petition has been communicated to all candidates, who have been selected in pursuance to the selections notified on 01.09.2001 and an information was also published in the newspaper.

Parties have exchanged their affidavits and have agreed for disposal of the writ petition at this stage itself.

On 2nd September, 2001 State respondents published an advertisement for recruitment on the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police)/Platoon Commander, P.A.C.. A copy of the advertisement is Annexure-1 to the leading writ petition. The number of post advertised are (a) Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) (799 male and 59 female), (b) Platoon Commander (99 in number) this includes the backlog vacancies also. It was further notified that number of vacancies can be altered as per the requirement. The last date for submission of the applications was notified as 15th October, 2001. Reservation in respect of various categories as per rules was also notified to be applicable. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners applied in pursuance to the said advertisement along with private respondents.

Initially a preliminary examination pertaining to physical test and eligibility test took place. All the petitioners/respondents qualified the same. Thereafter a main written examination was held and on the basis of the marks achieved by the candidates concerned in the written examination, they were called in order of merit for participation in the interview.

It is admitted to the parties that under the statutory rules, number of candidates to be invited for interview has to be in the ratio of 2.5 against 1 post in the category concerned. A merit list for the purposes of invitation to participate in the process of interview was prepared with reference to the marks obtained in the written examination. The first phase of the interview took place between 18th August, 2003 to 28th August, 2003. In the first phase 263 candidates participated (out of which 113 candidates have been finally selected).

On 29th August, 2003 further interview was postponed under order of the Government dated 29th August, 2003, the reason assigned being that there was a change of the State Government in the State of U.P.. The order dated 29th August, 2003 was revoked under an order dated 15th January, 2004. However, the second phase of the interview could only be started only after 2 years and was held between 14th February, 2005 to 16th February 2005. In the said interview 496 candidates participated (out of which 167 were finally selected). The last phase of the interview took place on 16th May 2005 in respect of Ex-Servicemen, wherein 28 candidates were called for interview and 27 have finally been selected.

The select list was notified on 3rd September, 2005. The select list as published in the newspaper only made mention of the roll number of selected candidates and the post against which the particular candidate had been selected. The exact category under which the selection has been made was not notified.

The result so declared on 3rd September, 2005 was challenged before this Court by filing the present writ petition on 17th September, 2005. The Court granted ten days' time to the Standing Counsel for filing counter affidavit and required him to produce the original records. The matter was heard by this Court on various dates and under various orders informations in respect of the selections in question was called for. The original records, including the key-answers as well as answer sheets of certain candidates have been examined by the Court. A statement of the break up of the vacancies under various categories has also been supplied by the State authorities. The chart so supplied is being reproduced:

mifujh{kd ukxfjd iqfyl ,oa IykVwu dek.Mkj ih0,0lh lh/kh HkrhZ ijh{kk 2001 dh 1045 fjfDr;ksa dk fooj.k ftlesa ls dq'ky f[kykMh ds fy;s 02 izfr'kr dk dksVk ?kVkus  ij






oxZ @Js.kh

LkekU; oxZ

vU; fiNMk oxZ

vuqlwfpr tkfr oxZ

vulwfpr tutkfr oxZ



dh dqy fjfDr






mifujh{kd uk0iq0 iq:"k 1999 cSdykx dh fjfDr






mifufj{kd uk0iq0 2001 dh fjfDr






Efgykvksa dks 20 izfr'kr dh nj ls 2001 dh fjfDr;ksa ij vkj{k.k nsus ij fjfDr dh la[;k






2001 dh ijh{kk ds fy;s m0fu0 efgyk ds 'kklu }kjk Lohd`r in ,oa vkj{k.k ds fu;e ds ykxw djus ij






oxZokj p;fur efgyk vH;fFkZ;ksa dh  la[;k






IykVwu dek.Mj dh dqy fjfDr






IykVwu dek.Mj ih0,0lh0 cSdykx 199 dh fjfDr






IykVwu dek.Mj  ih0,0lh0 2001 dh fjfDr






;ksx dqy fjfDr mifujh{kd] mifujh{kd efgyk ,oa IykVwu dek.Mj  ih0,0lh0






In order to keep the record straight it may be recorded that even before the process of selection had been completed, number of writ petitions were filed (leading writ petition being Writ Petition No. 34757 of 2003) by the persons who were unsuccessful in the main written examination qua the recruitment of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police)/Platoon Commander, P.A.C. for quashing the result of the main written examination itself with a further prayer that the respondents may be directed to hold afresh main written examination in consonance with the advertisement dated 2nd September, 2001 and circular dated 31.8.2001.

These writ petitions were dismissed and the respondent authorities were directed to proceed with the selection and were directed to conclude the same at the earliest. It is worthwhile to reproduce paragraph 18 of the said judgment, wherein the statement of then Additional Advocate General, representing the State authorities at the relevant time, was recorded. Paragraph 18 reads as follows:

"18. Giving the details of the number of persons, who have qualified in the mains written examination, Sri Sudhir Agarwal submits that each candidate was required to secure 40% as qualifying marks in the mains written examination. As against 89 vacancies for Sub-Inspectors Civil Police (women), 221 (in the ratio of 2.5: 1) could be called, whereas only 124 candidates have qualified. In the category of Freedom fighters, as against 50 vacancies only 25 candidates have secured minimum qualifying marks, and against 27 vacancies for Ex-Servicemen only 13 candidates have secured the minimum qualifying marks. He submits that the State Government has not issued any notification under U.P. Act No. 4/1993, for reservations to Physically Handicapped in Civil Police and Platoon Commanders P.A.C."

Paragraph 28 of the aforesaid judgment which deals with the aforesaid issue, wherein the Hon'ble Court has recorded its finding in respect of the said issue, reads as follows:  

"29. The objections of Sri Sudhir Agarwal, learned Additional Advocate General, regarding maintainability of writ petitions by those petitioners who have appeared in the selections and have failed, and thus acquiesced their individual rights, is also liable to be sustained. In Kavindra Kumar v. Deputy Inspector General of Police, 2003(1)ESC 235 (All), I had upheld the same argument. Para 21 of the report is quoted as below:

''(21) Apart from merits, as discussed above, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed by upholding the objection of learned Standing Counsel, that having appeared in the selection, without raising any objection, the petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the procedure. In Union of India and another v. Chandrashekharan and others, (1998) 3 SCC 694, it was held in para 13 that all the candidates were made aware of the procedure for promotion before they sat for the written test and before they appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee."  

The State respondents therefore completed the process of selection and notified the select list on 3rd September, 2005. This preparation and notification of select lists is under challenge in these petitions.

During the course of the arguments and after examination of the records, following two basic issues cropped up for consideration before this Court (a) The key-answer in respect of nearly 21 questions of the written examination (2 marks each) were either incorrect or had multiple right answers (b) the number of candidates called for interview in the concerned category was beyond the prescribed ratio of 2.5 against 1 post. Suffice is to reproduce the order of the Court dated 6th July, 2006, which reads as follows:

"Heard Shri C.B. Yadav, learned Chief Standing Counsel.

It is stated that the following number of candidates in excess of the ratio fixed for calling the candidates for interview in the respective categories i.e. 1:2.5 had been invited and in fact participated in the process of selection: (i) General category 12 candidate (ii) OBC category 74 candidate.

It is further stated that out of the aforesaid candidates called for interview in excess of the ratio two persons have been selected from the General category against the horizontal quota of ex-army men. While out of such candidates belonging to other backward category (a) 22 have been selected against the horizontal quota for women (b) 3 have been selected against horizontal quota of freedom fighters (c) 11 have been selected against horizontal quota for Ex-service men. It is held that participation of persons in excess of the ratio fixed under the rules conditions notified for selection is illegal and unjustified it would necessarily follow that the candidates selected within horizontal quota will be entitled to their adjustment in their respective categories only and therefore last selected candidate in the respective category are likely to be adversely effected.

For the said purpose Shri C.B. Yadav, learned Chief Standing Counsel may supply list of candidates who are likely to be affected because of the order which may be passed by this Court ultimately. In such a fact situation he may also disclosed the last cut of marks fixed in each category for the purposes of calling the candidates for interview.

Put up this case on 11th July 2006.

Copy of this order may be supplied by tomorrow."

The Court may also record that on 11th October, 2006 the Court required the Chief Standing Counsel to supply information in form of a chart supported by an affidavit to be sworn by a responsible officer furnishing the details of the horizontal reservation applied in respect of female category candidates, ex-servicemen and freedom fighter.

Issue No. (a)

It is admitted on record that written examination was of 200 marks comprising of two papers of 100 marks each. The questions were objective in nature and the candidates were required to mark the correct answer by marking the space against the set out of 4 answers given on an OMR sheet. These OMR answer sheets were then feed in a computer with reference to key answers and marks obtained by the candidates were recorded. The marks so prepared is the basis for interview letter being issued.

An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners supported by text-book, stating therein that key-answers to question nos. 1, 2, 9, 13, 14, 43, 45, 54, 59, 63, 70, 75, 81 and 84 of paper no. I and question nos. 104, 105, 112, 120, 132, 152 and 199 in respect of the second paper of general knowledge are either incorrect or contain multiple correct answers. This Court required the State respondents to file a counter affidavit to the averments so made.

A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State respondents wherein they admitted that 7 key-answers, as pointed out by the petitioners, were either incorrect or had multiple correct answer in respect of other 14 questions a vague reply was submitted. The Court was not satisfied with the manner in which reply was filed on behalf of State authorities and therefore insisted upon the Advocate General to obtain an expert opinion with regard to correctness of the 21 key-answers in dispute and to supply the same to the Court. At that stage parties agreed that arguments may be closed and State respondents may supply the expert's opinion to the Court within reasonable time. It was ordered accordingly.

The State respondents as well as the private respondent at the time of hearing admitted that at least 7 key-answers were incorrect and in respect of other the Court may itself examine the correctness of the answers.

The oral submission on behalf of the respondents was confined to somehow or the other save the selections qua the candidates who claimed  that the selection shall not be effected even if the marks of the incorrect key answers were deducted or added to total marks of the petitioners.

The Advocate General Uttar Pradesh came out with a proposal in that regard, which reads as follows:

" ........,slh fLFkfr esa lfefr us loZ lEefr ls ;g fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k bl vk'k; dk lq>ko izLrqr fd;k tk; fd =qfViw.kZ Lohdkj fd;s x;s 07 iz'uksa ds vfrfjDr ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa pqukSrh fn;s x;s vU; iz'uksa dh ANSWER KEY ds lEcU/k esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'kkuqlkj la'kksf/kr dj iqu% ANSWER KEY cukdj vH;fFkZ;ksa dh "vks0,e0vkj0" lhV dk iquZeqY;kadu fd;k tk;A

3- bl izdkj rS;kj dh x;h ubZ lwph esa ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lk{kkRdkj esa lfEefyr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk mudk lk{kkRdkj ysrs gq;s fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k ds vuqlkj iqu% la'kksf/kr vafre p;u ifj.kke rS;kj fd;k tk; A ubZ ANSWER KEY ds vuqlkj iquZeY;kaduksijkUr iwoZ esa p;fur tks vH;FkhZ vlQy ik;s tk;s mudk p;u fujLr djrs gq;s mudk uke vafre p;fur lwph ls gVk fn;k tk; A

4- HkrhZ cksMZ }kjk ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd fo}ku egkf/koDrk mRrj izns'k 'kklu ds ek/;e ls ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls iwoZ p;u lwph ds vk/kkj ij iqfyl izf'k{k.k egkfo|ky;ksa esa lQyrkiwoZd cfld izf'k{k.k iw.kZ dj pqds dSMsVksa dks tuin@bdkbZ esa "QhYM" izf'k{k.k gsrq vkoafVr djus dh vuqefr iznku djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k tk; A bl izdj.k esa leLr vxzsrj dk;Zokgh ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj gh fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k A"

Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rajesh Pratap Singh, appearing for selected candidates, filed his written arguments, and after admitting that at least 7 key answers were incorrect, came out with a suggestion that selected candidates, who have already completed their training (though no appointments have been made on the post of Sub-Inspector), 21 Platoon Commander have joined the service after the interim order of the Court, which was discriminatory. It was pointed out that 168 posts are still lying vacant and if the marks in respect of incorrect questions are added, it shall not materially affect the selection. Lastly it was submitted that the entire examination may not be cancelled by this Court, instead an effort be made to segregate the illegally appointed candidates from lawfully appointed candidates and in that regard reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Manish Ujwal and others v Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and others; 2005(13) Supreme Court Cases 744 and K. Channegowda & others v Karnataka Public Service Commission & others; (2005) 12 S.C.C. 688.

It was repeatedly argued by the Advocate General as well as by the Senior Counsels for the private respondents that instead of entire examination being cancelled by this Court because of preparation of incorrect key answers, an effort be made to protect the interest of the candidates whose merit will not be altered even if the maximum marks in respect of incorrect key-answers are awarded to the petitioners or the total marks in that regard are deducted from the actual marks awarded to the selected candidates.

Sri Amit Sthalekar, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on 1st March, 2007 supplied to the Court the expert opinion obtained from the Head of Department of the University of Allahabad (Central University) in respect of the key-answers. The expert opinion so supplied has been taken on record. From the expert opinion it is now an admitted position that the stand, as taken by the counsel for the petitioners in respect of 21 key-answers being either incorrect or had multiple correct answers is factually correct. The report of the expert shall form part of the record of the present writ petition. The marks for each correct answer is 2 and therefore the total number of marks involved in respect of the aforesaid incorrect key-answers/multiple correct key-answers would work out to 42.

Such large number of incorrect key-answers result in mistake being committed in respect of awarding of marks to the candidates in two ways; (a) A candidate giving a wrong answer to the question (because of incorrect key-answer) gets full marks for the same treating the answer to be correct, (b) a candidate correctly answering the question is denied two marks in respect of the particular question because of the key-answer being incorrect.

The impact of such incorrect key answer has been subject matter of consideration in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in JT 2005 (8) SC 382; Manish Ujwal & Ors. v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and Others, in para 10, 11, 12 and 13 it has been held as follows:

"10. In Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor & Ors. v. Samir Gupta & Ors. considering similar problem, this Court held that there is an assumption about the key answers being correct and in case of doubt, the court would unquestionably prefer the key answer. It is for this reason that we have not referred to those key answers in respect whereof there is a doubt as a result of difference of opinion between experts. Regarding the key answers in respect whereof the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, this Court has held that it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong. There is no dispute about the aforesaid six key answers being demonstrably wrong and this fact has rightly not been questioned by the learned counsel for the University. In this view, students cannot be made to suffer for the fault and negligence of the University.  

11. The High Court has committed a serious illegality in coming to the conclusion that "it cannot be said with certainty that answers to six questions given in the key answers were erroneous and incorrect". As already noticed, the key answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. In that view of the matter, the student community, whether the appellants or intervenors or even those who did not approach the High Court or this Court, cannot be made to suffer on account of errors committed by the University. For the present, we say no more because there is nothing on record as to how this error crept up in giving the erroneous key answers and who was negligent. At the same time, however, it is necessary to note that the University and those who prepare the key answers have to be very careful and abundant caution is necessary in these matters for more than one reason. We mention few of those; first and paramount reason being the welfare of the student and a wrong key answer can result in the merit being made a casualty. One can well understand the predicament of a young student at the threshold of his or her career if despite giving correct answer, the student suffers as a result of wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answer; the second reason is that the courts are slow in interfering in education matters which, in turn, casts a higher responsibility on the University while preparing the key answers; and thirdly, in cases of doubt, benefit goes in favour of the University and not in favour of the students. If this attitude of casual approach in providing key answer is adopted by concerned persons, directions may have to be issued for taking appropriate action, including the disciplinary action, against those responsible for wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers but we refrain from issuing such directions in the present case.

12. The second counseling for the admission above mentioned, we are informed, is fixed from 25th August, 2005, onwards. We direct re-evaluation of all the questions by feeding correct answers, as above noticed, and on that basis correct number of marks obtained by all the students should be assigned and their ranking prepared........"

13. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, allow the appeals and impose on Respondent no. 1- University cost amounting to rupees one lac, which amount shall be kept by the University in a separate account to be utilized only for the welfare of the student community.  

What applies to an candidate at the threshold of his academic career, apply with equal force in respect of an unemployed youth at the threshold of his service career. A candidate cannot be permitted to suffer as a result of wrong and demonstratively erroneous key answers. As directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India re-evaluation of all the answers by feeding correct answers, as per the report of the experts of the University of Allahabad (Central University), is the only reasonable solution in the facts of the present case.

At this stage the Court may consider the contention of the Advocate General as well as private respondents, with reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Channegowda & others v Karnataka Public Service Commission & others  (supra) , for the purposes of segregating, if possible, the illegal selectees from the candidates whose selection can be saved, according to the counsel for the respondents, even after deducting the marks pertaining to the incorrect key answers, and after adding the maximum marks to marks actually received by the petitioners.  

It is no doubt true that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has specifically held that an attempt should be made to segregate the bad part from good part and in case the selection of certain candidates can be saved after the illegal beneficiaries are removed,, the Court may not quash the selection of the valid selectees.

The legal principle recorded is not in doubt. However, in the facts of the case the Court may record that by no reasonable classification/basis the two categories of selected candidates (i.e. illegally and legally selected) can be segregated. No selected candidates can be segregated for saving his selection for the following reasons:

(a) Difference of 42 marks, which represents 21 incorrect answers would virtually have the effect of redetermination of the entire list of candidates to be invited for interview in the ratio of 2.5 candidates against one post in all the categories separately.

(b) In a given case the total marks actually received by a selected candidate may be reduced by 42 because in correct answers and at the same time a candidate not invited for interview may be entitled for addition of 42 marks to the total marks actually awarded because of the same. Thus the total difference of marks after correct key answers are feeded to the computer would work out to 84.

(c) The position becomes worst because in a given case a candidate, who according to his merit may have been invited for selection within the reserved category because of his low merit viz-z-viz the last candidate invited in the general category, on correct marks being awarded to him, may become entitled to be considered in the general category itself and thereby creating a reserve vacancy for a candidate belonging to the same category.

(d) Similarly, vise versa is also true. A candidate invited for interview in the general category on the strength of his marks obtained on the basis of the incorrect answers may ultimately be relegated to the reserved category on the reevaluated marks based on correct key answers.

There are only examples (not exhaustive) for demonstrating that the very basis (merit list) for invitation for interview stands vitiated and there is hardly any chance/basis for determining as to who will still remain in the merit list of the particular category for being invited for interview at this stage. It is on record that a large number of candidates have secured similar marks and invited for interview and therefore the difference of 84 and in any case 42 marks shall alter the entire merit list of candidates to be invited for interview.

Therefore, by no reasonable exercise, at this stage  the Court can determine as to which of the selected candidate was entitled to be invited to participate in the interview and as to which of the candidate was not entitled for being called for interview in their respective category.

In the opinion of the Court, the only protection which can be granted to the resent selectees who continue in the select list after re-evaluation of marks in written test as  in the facts of the present case is that such a candidate, who had been selected earlier and had undergone training during the pendency of the present writ petition for the same post is again selected, he shall not be required to undergo the training afresh and shall be offered appointment immediately after fresh select list is notified.  

In the opinion of the Court, there is no other fair and reasonable solution in the facts of the case, mess where of has been created because of the most negligent and unconcerned attitude of the State respondents.

Issue No. (b)

It is admitted to the State respondents that in General category 12 candidates as well as in Other Backward Caste category 74 candidates in excess of the ratio of 2.5 against one post had been invited for interview. This Court may record that such invitation extended by the State respondents to the candidate in excess of ratio is totally uncalled for and illegal, inasmuch as it is settled that if law require something to be done in the particular manner, it is to be done in the same manner or not at all. The State respondents cannot be permitted to violate the statutory rules which prescribe the ratio for the purposes of invitation for participation in the interview.

This Court is not required to examine the matter any further inasmuch as entire process of selection from the stage of written examination has to be re-done afresh in view of the conclusions arrived at qua issue no. (a). It is, however, clarified that the State respondent shall ensure that in respect of each category of candidates to be invited for interview, the ratio fixed under the rules i.e. 2.5 candidate against one post shall be strictly followed and in no case excess candidate shall be invited for participation in the interview.  

In view of the aforesaid, the select list as notified on 3rd September, 2005, for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) and Platoon Commander, P.A.C., by the U.P. Police Recruitment Board, Allahabad is hereby quashed. The respondent State authorities are directed to reevaluate the answer sheets of all the candidates by feeding correct key answers as per the report of the experts committee of the University of Allahabad, referred to above, and on the basis of the correct marks obtained by the candidates after such reevaluation, they shall be assigned their ranking in their respective category for the purposes of being invited for interview in the ratio of 2.5 candidates against one post. For the said purpose the State respondents shall publish necessary advertisement giving details of the applicants selected in their respective categories with the marks obtained and shall also intimate the date for holding interview merit-wise. The interview board shall be constituted at the earliest and process of interview shall be completed preferably within one month from the date selected list of candidates is so published. The final list of the selected candidate shall be notified within four weeks from the date the process of selection is completed and selected candidates shall be sent for training immediately without any delay for their respective post.

Any candidate, who had been selected earlier and has already completed his training shall not be required to undergo the training afresh and he shall be offered appointment on the post concerned immediately after his result is so declared.

With the aforesaid observations/directions the present writ petition is allowed.

Dt- 24.04.2007



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


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 |

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