Jharkhand High Court
Abhinav Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 March, 2022
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1060 of 2022
Abhinav Kumar ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel Administration and
Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Ranchi
4. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its
Secretary, Ranchi ..... Respondents
-----
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kunal Priyam
For the JPSC: Mr. Sanjay Piprawall
-----
02/10.03.2022 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the
respondent-JPSC to publish the petitioner‟s result of Preliminary Test of Combined Civil Services Examination (P.T)-2021 [hereinafter referred to as „the P.T Examination, 2021‟] held pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2021 allotting appropriate marks in General Studies Paper-II keeping in view that as per the answer key published by the respondent-JPSC, he has got total 272 marks after self-evaluation which is more than the cut-off marks of 248.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Advertisement No. 01/2021 was published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), Ranchi for Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination-2021 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for filling up different posts in the State of Jharkhand. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner filled up the examination form and appeared in the Preliminary Test held on 19.09.2021. The petitioner properly filled the digits in the roll number portion of Paper-II of OMR sheet and correctly bubbled/shadowed all the circles in accordance with the instructions issued by the JPSC. The details appearing in the roll number portion of OMR sheet were also sufficiently legible for identifying the roll number of the petitioner in OMR Sheet of Paper-II. At the time of submission of the OMR sheet, there was no mistake regarding bubbling/shadowing of wrong Roll Number, rather the same was filled up in 2 appropriate manner, otherwise the same would not have been accepted by the examiner. As per the answer key published by the JPSC, the petitioner evaluated his marks and found that he got 272 marks, which was more than the cut-off marks fixed for selection of a General candidate. It is further submitted that the result of P.T Examination was published on 01.11.2021 on the website of the respondent-JPSC, however, the roll number of the petitioner was not found in the P.T result. Thereafter, the petitioner represented the JPSC vide letter dated 13.12.2021 raising his grievance, however, he received a letter of the respondent No.3 vide memo No. 3225 dated 29.12.2021 intimating him that he was not selected, as his Paper-II stood rejected due to wrong bubbling of the roll number in the OMR sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument, puts reliance on a judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gudura Raja Surya Praveen [S.L.P.(C) No. 18592 of 2016].
3. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC contends that on perusal of the petitioner‟s OMR sheet of Paper-II of the P.T Examination-2021, it would be evident that the bubbles of the roll number were not properly filled by him and due to fault on his part in not adhering to the guidelines/instructions mentioned in the Admit Card, the OMR Scanning Machine rejected his OMR Answer Sheet. It is further submitted that the instructions mentioned in the Admit Card are mandatory in nature for all candidates and the JPSC cannot do anything towards the automatic process of evaluation of the answer sheets as no manual interference is permitted in the said process.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC puts reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Kumar Sanu Yadav Vs. The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 2565 of 2020]. He puts further reliance on a judgment rendered by a Bench of this Court in the case of Aditya Isha Prachi Tirkey Vs. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission [W.P.(S) No. 5153 of 2021]. 3
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record as well as the judgments relied upon by the parties in support of their rival submissions. The petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent-JPSC to evaluate his OMR answer sheet of Paper-II of the P.T. Examination, 2001 and to declare his result after calculating his marks obtained in Paper-I and Paper-II.
6. In the case of Kumar Sanu Yadav (Supra), this Court had an occasion to deal with a matter relating to wrong darkening/shadowing of the Roll Number, Centre Code, Subject Code, Booklet Series, Booklet Number etc. in OMR sheet wherein it has been held as under:-
"I would like to refer a judgment rendered in the case of Bhanu Priya Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in 2018 (3) JLJR 691, wherein identical issue had arisen before this court and while rejecting the prayer of the candidate, the Court has held as under:-
6. It is worth to mention that in a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5803 of 2016 [Mishra Somesh Kumar Shiv Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand &Ors.] filed against the rejection of the candidature due to wrong shadowing of the bubbles of OMR sheet in 5th Combined Civil Service (Mains Examination), 2015, a Bench of this Court dismissed the said writ petition vide order dated 09.01.2017 with following observation:
"The petitioner, in paragraph no. 7 of the writ petition, has himself admitted that he darkened the bubble under the Centre Code wrongly. It is admitted at Bar that the entire system of evaluation of OMR sheet is fully computerised and no manual interference is permitted. It is stated that in the question booklet/OMR sheet etc. instruction was printed that, OMR answer sheet will be processed electronically and OMR Scanning machine will reject OMR sheet in which Roll number, Centre Code, Subject Code, Booklet Series and Booklet number are not properly and correctly shadowed. The OMR sheet of the petitioner which was wrongly darkened at one place, obviously was rejected by the computer and while so, no direction can be issued to the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission to re-assess or to accept the marks which was published on the website, wrongly."4
7. The said order was challenged by the candidate in L.P.A. No. 55 of 2017 which was also dismissed by the learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.09.2017 with following observations:-
"........... If there is an error on the part of the candidates in giving these details through darkening the circles, candidates are bound to suffer because first process is being done by OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) scanning machine and then Roll Number, Paper Code, Centre Code and such other details are being scrutinized by machine and not by manually i.e. by human-beings. Few may be advantageous and few may be disadvantageous. Candidates are bound to do practice at home. This case is no exception to such type of error committed by the candidates in inserting the Center Code by darkening wrong circle by their pencils. There is inbuilt demand of accuracy from the candidates that at least they must know how to write technically the details about their Roll Number, Centre Code etc. by darkening the circles. Examination means to check the accuracy of the candidates.
We see no reason to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(S) No. 5803 of 2016 vide judgment and order dated 09.01.2017 mainly for the reasons that:
(a) Darkening of the circles are part and parcel of the examination process.
(b) Process of the data of the candidates is through OMR scanning machine and they are bound to give correct data to the machine through darkening the circles.
(c) In Condition No.4 of the Admit Card, it is clearly mentioned that OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) answer sheet will be processed electronically. As such invalidation of answer sheet due to incomplete/incorrect, filling/shadowing of the bubbles on OMR sheet, will be the sole responsibility of the candidate. OMR scanning machine will reject OMR sheet in which Roll No., Centre Code, Subject Code and Paper Code are not properly and correctly shadowed in Part-III.
In view of this condition, candidates are bound to be accurate. This Court cannot allow their lethargic approach; otherwise, there will be several candidates, who have committed error, will come to the Court and all the answer sheets are to be verified/ checked/ processed manually.
5Now-a-days, partly such type of answer sheets are being processed by machines and partly by manual. Days are not far away, when everything will be processed by machines.
(d) Even otherwise also, result of 5th Combined Civil Services (Mains) Examination-
2015 has already been declared in February, 2016, as submitted by the counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5. Candidates have been selected and by now, they have already been appointed and they are not joined as party respondents."
8. It is the prime duty of a candidate who is appearing in any examination to read the instructions provided at different stages carefully and to ensure that the OMR sheet is filled up as per the instructions and if a candidate makes any fault due to his/her carelessness, no direction can be issued by the Writ Court in favour of such candidate. If the prayer of the petitioner is allowed, it would open a Pandora box for several candidates taking one or the other ground seeking intervention of the Writ Court which would in fact nullify the specific instructions provided to the candidates before and during the examination."
7. I have also gone through the instructions given in Annexure-3 (Provisional Admit Card of the petitioner). Clause 4 of the said instructions reads as under:-
"4. OMR (Optical mark recognition) answer sheet will be processed electronically. As such invalidation of answer sheet due to incomplete/incorrect filling/shadowing of the bubbles of OMR sheet, will be the sole responsibility of the candidate. OMR scanning Machine will reject OMR sheet in which Roll No. & Booklet Series are not properly and correctly (in word or number or both as required) shadowed as filled up in OMR sheet."
8. Thus, the petitioner was specifically informed by way of Instructions for Candidate incorporated in the Provisional Admit Card that the OMR Scanning Machine would reject OMR sheet in which roll number and booklet series were not properly and correctly filled up/shadowed in the respective columns of OMR Sheet. The petitioner was supposed to read the instructions carefully and fill up the required columns of the OMR sheet cautiously, but he failed to do so. Since the petitioner committed mistake in filling the OMR sheet, no direction can be issued to the respondents under equitable writ jurisdiction to publish the result of the petitioner.
9. Otherwise also, the petitioner wants to become an Assistant Mechanical Engineer and such a careless 6 approach was not expected from him. By not following the instructions given to him while appearing in the examination would mean that either he was so careless that he did not read the instructions properly or did not bother to follow the same. Such a careless approach is not expected from a person who wants to become an engineer."
7. Further, in the case of Aditya Isha Prachi Tirkey (Supra) relating to the same examination conducted in pursuance of Advertisement No. 01/2021 wherein the issue was with regard to wrong darkening/shadowing of Roll Number in OMR sheet, the Bench declined to give any relief to the petitioner of that case holding inter alia that admittedly, the petitioner wrongly darkened the last digit of her roll number which was fault on her part and it was evident that the conditions/instructions mentioned in Clause-4 of the Admit Card, had not been fulfilled by the petitioner.
8. I have gone through the Admit Card of the petitioner annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition wherein under Clause 4 of "Instructions for Candidates", it has been provided as under:-
"4. OMR (Optical mark recognition) answer sheet will be processed electronically. As such invalidation of answer sheet due to incomplete/incorrect filing/darkening of the bubbles on OMR sheet, will be the sole responsibility of the candidate. OMR Scanning Machine will reject OMR sheet in which Roll NO. & Booklet Series are not properly and correctly (in word or number or both as required) darkened or filled up in OMR sheet."
9. Thus, the petitioner was specifically informed by way of Instructions for Candidates incorporated in the Admit Card that the OMR answer sheet would be processed electronically and the OMR Scanning Machine would reject the OMR sheet, if the Roll Number and Booklet Series were not properly and correctly darkened or filled up in the OMR Sheet. The petitioner has annexed a copy of OMR Answer Sheet of Paper-II from which it appears that the roll number was not been properly shadowed by him (in fact, an additional shadowing is seen at an inappropriate place) and as such no direction can be issued to the respondent-JPSC under equitable writ jurisdiction to publish the result of the petitioner. The petitioner wants to join the State Civil Services and hence he 7 was expected to have taken due care while shadowing the OMR sheet that too, when clear instructions were given in the Admit Card to that effect.
10. In the case of Gudura Raja Surya Praveen (Supra) as has been relied upon by the petitioner, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has not laid down any ratio on the issue, rather has set aside the general direction of the High Court given to the Staff Selection Commission to undertake evaluation of the answer sheets of all such candidates, who might have made an error in not thickening/blackening the appropriate circles relating to one column or the other for hall ticket number, roll number clarifying that the relief grated by the High Court would stand limited to the respondent of that case only. Thus, the direction of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court given in the said case cannot be applied in the present one. I am of the considered view that sympathy and compassion stay at a distance when careless approach is taken by a candidate in filling up the OMR answer sheet and he/she undermines or ignores the specific instructions mentioned in the Admit Card, otherwise it will amount to opening a pandora box and no process of examination to fill up public posts will attain finality.
11. In view of the aforesaid legal and factual position, I find no merit in the petitioner‟s claim so as to make any interference under the writ jurisdiction which is otherwise discretionary in nature.
12. The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Satish/AFR (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)