Case :-
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 150 of 2013
Petitioner :-
Navin Srivastava And Others
Respondent :-
State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :-
Abhishek Srivastava,Shashi Nandan
Respondent Counsel :-
C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh,C.B.Yadav
And
1. Special Appeal No. 149 of 2013
2. Special Appeal No. 152 of 2013
3. Special Appeal No. 159 of 2013
4. Special Appeal No. 161 of 2013
5. Special Appeal No. 205 of 2013
6. Special Appeal No. 206 of 2013
7. Special Appeal No. 220 of 2013
Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli,J.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
In this bunch of similar appeals, we
have heard learned
counsel for the appellants and the
learned Additional Advocate
General for the State. List these
appeals together again as a bunch
on 20.02.2013. By that time, a supplementary-counter-affidavit
will be filed by the respondents
giving full details, and enclosing
therewith copies of all the
supporting/relevant documents,
separately on each of the alleged
irregularities referred to in the
report of the High Powered Committee.
Each of irregularities will be dealt
with separately in an
analytical manner. During the course
of arguments, we have
pointed out today to the learned
Additional Advocate General that
the report of the Committee, which
has been enclosed with the
counter-affidavit raises the basic
question whether the Committee
has applied its mind to the
allegations and material by way of
analytical scrutiny, or has taken
too supercficial a view of the
matter. By way of an example, the
report notes that 3493 carbon
copies of OMR Sheets were seized
from offices of the Agency
the SFL, Lucknow. Thereafter it says
that the SP, Ramabai Nagar
has given a report dated 10.04.2012
saying that the investigation
so far, has revealed that instead of
getting the original OMR Sheets
being examined by the Computer,
carbon copies of the same had
been examined.
Merely because the carbon copies
were found from the
Agency's Office will not necessarily
mean that the original OMR
Sheets of those carbon copies were
not found. This should have
been got clarified by the Committee.
Further, it has not been
considered as to what is the
material on the basis of which the S.P.
has inferred that the Computer
Scanner examined the carbon
copies instead of the original
Answer Sheets.
From the side of the appellants, it
has been submitted that the
original OMR answer-sheets contain a
"Bar Code", without which
the Scanner will not examine the OMR
sheet. It has been argued,
although there is no pleading to
that effect, that the carbon copies
do not contain the 'bar code',
because the carbon copies are to be
given back to the candidates after
the examination.
We are of the opinion that when no
opportunity of hearing is
being afforded to the concerned
selected candidates, and because
the decision is likely to alter the
fate of more than seventy
thousand candidates, a much greater
responsibility lay upon the
High Powered Committee to elicit
full details, to examine and
analyse the material so obtained,
and to test the reports on the basis
of which the Committee is giving its
decision.
In the above light, a
supplementary-counter affidavit should be
filed by the State-respondents.
List all these cases on 20.02.2013,
as prayed by the learned Addl.
Advocate General.
Interim order will continue till the
next date of listing.
Order Date :-
12.2.2013
Sunil Kr Tiwari
(Manoj Misra, J.)
(Sushil Harkauli, J.)