Andhra Pradesh HC Dismisses a Writ Petition On Account of Limitation Period

Must Read

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was...

Follow us

The division bench consisting of honorable Justice C. Praveen Kumar and justice D. Ramesh gave orders on the writ appeal filed by the appellants. The writ petition was filed seeking to declare the actions of respondent’s in conducting examination as illegal, improper, and incorrect.

Facts

In this case, by the order dated 22.10.2020, the learned single judge postponed the main examination which was scheduled to be held on 2.11.2020. The Judge directed the public service commission to make appropriate correction in marks awarded to the candidates who appeared for the examination, after that a new merit list and cut off point will be declared and those who qualify in the new merit list will be eligible for writing the main examination.

After completion of the above procedure, the main examination will be conducted. Challenging the same the writ appeal was filed by the appellants. Various issues were raised such as mistakes in translation of questions from English to the Telugu language; not allowing non-programmable calculators for solving certain questions; more than one correct answer in multiple-choice questions etc. 

Arguments Advanced 

The learned Counsel of the appellants submitted before the court that Q. Nos. 37, 48, 60 in paper-I and Q. Nos.  116 and 117 in the paper-II are not only translated incorrectly but they are incorrectly framed also. The answers given to some questions did not match with the translations and were quite opposite to each other. The learned Counsel pleads before the court for postponing of the main examination to be held on 14.12.2020.

The learned Counsel of the respondents submitted before the court that mistakes, if any, committed, while framing the questions and picking up the right answers will be affecting all students equally and no exception can be claimed by the appellants.

He further contends that in the writ appeal the objection was of translation error only and the arguments of the wrong framing of the question has been raised for the first time. He further adds that these writ appeals are not filled immediately after passing of the order rather they are filed only when the date of final examination was given. 

Analysis of the Court 

The analysis drawn in this case is that the impugned order was passed on 22.10.2020 and copies of the same were furnished within five days. The appellants filed the writ appeal in the first week of December 2020,  a week before the main examination, which is scheduled for 14.12.2020.

Further, it was seen that it is not open to the court to examine the correctness of the questions and answer key to come to a conclusion which is different from that of the expert committee. This point was decided in Vikesh Kumar Gupta vs The State of Rajasthan & others. A thirty-day time period was given to the candidates to raise objections on the answer key and questions of the paper. As the grievance of the appellants here are not the objections raised by them not considered, so the request of the appellants cannot be considered.

Decision of the Court 

The Court held that it is not open to them to decide the correctness of the questions which are discussed by the experts. Further, the appellants were given ample time to file their objections. Therefore, the court in this case dismissed the writ appeal filed by the appellants. No costs are allowed and any appeal pending in all the writ appeals shall be closed.

Click here to read the judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

Supreme Court Upheld “Environmental Rule of Law” in NGT Decision to Demolish Illegal Hotel on Forest Land

This case concerns the dispute relating to the additional construction of hotel-cum-restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex along with a bus stand and...

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hiscox Action...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -