- (1.) All the seventeen petitioners were the candidates for the appointment on the posts of Constable. They have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to consider their candidature on the post of Constables and re-determine the merit of the vacancies remained unfilled due to shortfall of the candidates. They have further sought a direction that they may be awarded 7.5 marks against six incorrect / cancelled questions and send them for necessary training.
(2.) The essential facts are; the respondent authority had issued an advertisement on 17th February, 2009 inviting applications from the candidates for the appointment on the posts of Constables in U.P. Police Department. The total number of vacancies was 35000. The petitioners made their applications in response to the said advertisement and they were not successful. The said selection was challenged in a large number of petitions on different issues. One set of the writ petitions was filed in respect of those wrong questions i.e. Writ Petition No. 38524 of 2010 (Matin Rao & Another v. State of U.P. & others) and Writ Petition No. 38526 of 2010 (Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. & others).
(3.) In the said writ petitions the basic grievance was in respect of six questions, which were indisputably found to be wrong. After the examinations the objections were invited by the respondent authority with regard to the correct answers and it found that six questions were wrongly posed and deleted, thus questions and the marks of those six questions were disputed. With respect to the six questions the Board constituted a Committee. After deliberation, the Board took a decision to apply the following formula to every candidate in a uniform manner. The formula reads as under: "the correct answers multiplied by the total marks of the paper divided by the number of correct questions.";