ABDUL MOIN,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 3 and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2.
(2.) By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to award the marks to the petitioner against the correct answers of question nos. 52, 55, 76, 92 and 100 (Series -C) in the answer booklet in which no marks have been awarded to the petitioner in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination-2018 after re-evaluation. A further prayer is to command the opposite parties to add to the score of total 65 marks as obtained by the petitioner, the 5 additional marks and declare the petitioner qualified with 70 marks and to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment against 68,500 posts of Assistant Teachers.
(3.) On 29.11.2019, this Court had passed the following order:- "Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 3 and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for awarding the marks to her against the correct answers of question nos.52, 55, 76, 92 and 100 of Series C in the answer booklet for which no marks have been awarded in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2018 after revaluation of the answer sheet. At the very out set, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not pressing the award of marks so far as it pertains to question no.100 and confines himself to other four questions. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after declaration of the result, the petitioner had secured 60 marks. When she had applied for re-evaluation, her marks were enhanced to 65. When the scanned copy of the answer sheet which had been applied by the petitioner in August, 2018 was received on 19.10.2019 it transpired that question nos. 52, 55, 76 and 92 have not been marked correctly rather the petitioner has been awarded Zero marks despite the question nos. 52 and 92 specifically adhering to the model answers and the same have the substance of the answer as held by this Court in the case of Aniruddh Narayan Shukla and 118 others vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ A No.18235 of 2018 decided on 30.10.2018, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-11 to the petition. Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2, however, points out that the scanned answer book which has been annexed by the petitioner is of prior to re-evaluation. He contends that it is admitted by the petitioner that her marks have been revised from 60 to 65 after re-evaluation and perhaps four questions that have been referred to by the petitioner have already been marked as correct while doing re-evaluation. Heard learned counsel for the contesting parties. The petitioner has already obtained 65 marks while the cut off marks for OBC category in which the petitioner falls is 67 and in case the petitioner is awarded four marks then she would succeed for being appointed as Assistant Teacher. However, it is not known as to whether the petitioner has been re-evaluated for the questions as aforesaid for which re-evaluation marks have been enhanced by 5. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted ten days' time to seek instructions as to whether the re-evaluation for the petitioner had taken place for question nos. 52, 55, 76 and 92 and whether the marks have been enhanced in pursuance to said re-evaluation for the said questions. List this case after ten days as fresh." ;