Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHAMMAD YASEEN versus PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION U.P. THRU' IT'S CHAIRMAN AND ANR.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mohammad Yaseen v. Public Service Commission U.P. Thru' It'S Chairman And Anr. - WRIT - A No. 75068 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7245 (9 December 2005)

 

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. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed by a candidate who appeared at the Preliminary Examination of the Sammilit Rajya/Prawar Adheenastha Sewa Backlog Sambandhi (Vishesh Chayan Pariksha)-2004 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Examination) for a direction to the respondents to declare the petitioner as successful at the said Examination and to permit him to appear at the Main Examination.

It has been stated that there are two papers for the Preliminary Examination namely Indian History and General Studies and all the questions in both the papers are objective. The petitioner has answered the objective questions fairly well and according to the petitioner the total marks obtained by him in both the papers should be 392.5. The petitioner has compared his case with that of the candidate bearing Roll No. 069478 who has been selected and who according to the petitioner should have obtained 387marks.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that whereas the candidate bearing Roll No. 069478 has been declared successful at the Preliminary Examination, the petitioner has not been declared successful and, therefore, the list of successful candidates has been prepared in an arbitrary manner. In such circumstances, according to him, the petitioner is entitled for being declared as a successful candidate in the Preliminary Examination and should be permitted to appear at the Main Examination.

We are afraid, such a relief cannot be granted to the petitioner. There is no provision for re-evaluation and, therefore, it is not possible for us to issue any direction for re-evaluation of the answer books. The petitioner has given the marks obtained by him and the other candidates merely on the basis of assumption, as the marks had not been declared by the examining body.

The writ petition is, therefore, totally misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.  

Date: 9.12.2005

NSC-75068


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.