OMR में सफेदा लगाने के प्रकरण में कोर्ट का आदेश
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
Court No. - 30
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL)
No. - 1041 of 2016
Applicant :- Pratiksha Singh
Opposite Party :- Ashish Goyal, Principal
Secry., Basic Education
Counsel for Applicant :- Agnihotri Kumar
Tripathi,Anil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
These contempt proceedings have been
initiated for violation of the direction
dated 08.10.2015 issued in Writ A No.
48620 of 2015 which reads as under:-
"This writ petition is therefore disposed of
at the admission stage itself with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties
with a direction to the respondent no.1,
Principal Secretary (Basic Education),
Shiksha, U.P. Lucknow to scrutinize and
examine all the OMR/Answer Sheets and
also identify those cases where it has
come on record that the result of even
those candidates have been declared who
have never appeared in the examinations.
This exercise shall be completed within a
period of four months from the date a
certified copy of this order is received in
The affidavit has been filed by Sri Ashish
Goyal, Principal Secretary (Basic
Education), Govt. of U.P., Lucknow stating
that pursuant to the direction given by
this Court, a meeting of high level officers
was called to ensure compliance and
pursuant to a decision taken in the
meeting, so held, a letter was sent to the
Managing Director, S.K. Printek Data
Create Solution, New Delhi for providing
original OMR Sheets of U.P. TET
Examination-2011 which returned back
with an endorsement that no such firm
exists. In the affidavit, inability has been
expressed to comply with the direction as
the original OMR Sheets were in the
custody of the firm. It has also been stated
that some OMR Sheets have been seized
and they are case property of Case Crime
No. 675 of 2011. In paragraph 14, it has
been stated that due to non-availability of
original OMR Sheets, compliance of the
order dated 08.10.2015 is not possible.
It is quite surprising that when the
bungling was of such a magnitude, instead
of sending a personal messenger to the
agency responsible for processing the
OMR Sheets and maintaining the record
was not approached directly but was
contacted only through a letter which
returned with an endorsement that no
such firm exists and, thereafter, what
efforts were made to trace out the firm
and its office-bearers are not disclosed.
Under the circumstances, this Court
considers it appropriate to direct the
opposite party to file an affidavit
disclosing what efforts were made to trace
out the partners of the firm and if those
firm partners were not traceable whether
any first information report was lodged
against them or not to ensure examination
of the original OMR Sheets, as directed by
Let this matter be, therefore, listed on
03rd May, 2016, by which date, the
opposite party will file a better affidavit
disclosing the steps that were taken by
him to ensure compliance of the order
Order Date :- 6.4.2016
क्या है मामला
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 48620 of 2015
Petitioner :- Sarita Shukla And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Anil Singh Bishen
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi for the petitioners and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Petitioners are seeking quashing of the result dated 25.11.2011,30.11.2011 and 29.1.2015. Further prayer is for a direction to the respondents to decrease the marks of those candidates whose marks have been increased by six marks.
It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an enquiry in the matter regarding irregularities in the selection in question was ordered and an enquiry report has been submitted by the Chief Secretary dated 10.4.2012 in which wide scale irregularities have been reported.
With regard to marks it is submitted that in the report submitted by the Enquiry Committee headed by the Principal Secretary dated 10.4.2012 five questions in the Madhya Prathmik Star Pariksha, eight questions in the the Ucch Prathmik Star (Science) seven questions Ucch Prathmik Star (Arts) have been changed. It is also submitted that in the A series of the Prathmik as well as Ucch Prathmik Star question paper 11 questions have been changed. In para-11 of the report it is mentioned that six questions in the Prathmik Star Pariksha, eight questions in the Uchh Prathmik Star Pariksha, two questions in the Prathmik Star Pariksha (Urdu) are also wrong.
In para 22-c of the writ petition it is alleged that in the result of the T.E.T. 2011 issued on 29.1.2015 there are candidates, whose names are mentioned in the list, who were not allotted any roll number. Their name has been shown who were about 1096 in number. In para 22-e a list of other candidates has been mentioned who have been shown Absent in the result declared on 25.11.2011 but their names have been shown as qualified in the TET Examination-2011. This list consists of about 68 names.
This writ petition is therefore disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties with a direction to the respondent no.1, Principal Secretary (Basic Education), Shiksha, U.P. Lucknow to scrutinize and examine all the OMR/Answer Sheets and also identify those cases where it has come on record that the result of even those candidates have been declared who have never appeared in the examinations. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received in his office.
Order Date :- 8.10.2015/Asha