Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anil Kumar vs State (Home) & Ors on 2 January, 2013
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.657/2012
Anil Kumar
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order : 02.01.2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
Mr. B.S. Sandhu for the petitioner
Mr. Pradhyuman Singh for the respondents
BY THE COURT :
By this petition for writ, the petitioner is claiming for a direction for the respondents to evaluate his answer- sheet and to award him appropriate marks in written examination undertaken in pursuant to advertisement dated 14.10.2010 pertaining to the recruitment as Constable in district Jaipur (Rural).
The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that under the advertisement dated 14.10.2010, the respondents initiated process of recruitment for the post of Constable (General), Constable (Operator), Constable (Driver), Constable (Horse Rider) and Constable (Band) in several districts of the State of Rajasthan against 7300 vacant posts. Being eligible, (2) the petitioner applied to face the process of selection and faced the same by appearing in written examination on 23.01.2011 with roll numbers 118672 in the category of Other Backward Class (Male). Suffice to mention that the petitioner sought his consideration for recruitment as Constable in district Jaipur (Rural). On declaration of the result of the written test, the cut-off marks fixed for the category of Other Backward Class (Male) were 32.375. The petitioner was hopeful to have about 72 marks in written test, but his roll numbers were not shown in the list of successful candidates, therefore, he submitted a representation to the respondents to convey him the marks obtained in written test. On receiving no response, he submitted an application as per the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to have details pertaining to the marks obtained by him in the written test referred above. The Inspector General of Police (Headquarters), Jaipur vide communication dated 28.03.2011 refused to supply the information looking to the secrecy required to be maintained in the process of selection. The petitioner re-iterated his cause and ultimately vide a communication dated 02.11.2011, the Additional Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) -cum- Public Information Officer, District Jaipur (Rural), informed that (3) 0 (zero) marks in written test were given to the petitioner as he did not mention his gender in the O.M.R. Sheet. It was also conveyed that the cut-off marks settled for Other Backward Class (Male) in the selection concerned were 32.375. Being aggrieved by awarding 0 (zero) marks, this petition for writ is preferred.
Though the notices were issued to the respondents and service too was effected upon them on 01.02.2012 itself, no reply to the writ petition has been filed. Looking to the urgency in the matter, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is heard without further waiting for reply.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents were aware of the gender of the petitioner as necessary details were already given in the application form, therefore, no reason was existing to reject his candidature on the count that he failed to refer his gender in O.M.R. Sheet. It is further submitted that as per Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1989'), the candidature of the petitioner could have been rejected only in the event of some lacuna in the application form and not in O.M.R. sheet.
(4)
Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that as per Clause 9(xi) of the notification dated 14.10.2010, the petitioner was under obligation to provide all necessary details as required in O.M.R. sheet. The O.M.R. sheet of the petitioner was admittedly incomplete, therefore, the computer device did not examine his answer- sheet and awarded 0 (zero) marks.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The candidature of the petitioner is rejected by the respondents on the count that he failed to mention his gender in the O.M.r. sheet. It is also correct that as per clause 9(xi) of the advertisement dated 14.10.2010, all necessary details were supposed to be given in O.M.R. sheet. However, neither the notification dated 14.10.2010 nor the Rules of 1989 prescribes that in the event of some error in O.M.R. sheet, the candidature of the examinee shall stand canceled. It is pertinent to mention here that all necessary details including the gender of the petitioner and the category in which his candidature was to be considered for recruitment as Constable were given in the application form. The respondents, as such, were having all necessary details pertaining to the petitioner in the application form itself. The Rules of 1989 provides complete process of selection and as per Rule 20, the (5) application form which are found to be incomplete and have not been filled in accordance with the instructions issued by the commission/recruitment board, shall be rejected at the initial stage. The commission/recruitment board shall permit rest of those candidates to appear in the examination provisionally to whom they consider it appropriate to grant the certificate of admission.
The application form of the petitioner was complete in all respects and therefore, the recruitment board issued certificate of admission and the petitioner was permitted to appear in written examination. The Rules of 1989 nowhere prescribe for rejection of examination on the count of not providing some information in O.M.R. sheet, as such, rejection of the petitioner's candidature or to declare him fail in the written test without examining his answer- sheet is not in accordance with the Rules of 1989. True it is, the petitioner failed to mention his gender in O.M.R. sheet, but this error could have been rectified manually, specially in the circumstances that the Rules of 1989 nowhere prescribe for rejection of candidature of or awarding 0 (zero) marks in the event of some error in O.M.R. sheet.
This court in Datar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9170/2012] decided on (6) 11.09.2012 while dealing with the condonation of such errors held as under :-
"From examination of record of each and every case I found that the errors crypted are quite minor but having far reaching effects including non- consideration of the petitioners for appointment on the post concerned. The error so committed excludes them from consideration against the vacancies relating to their own category. It is also noticed that the petitioners after filing the application forms made representations to the respondents, but no correction was made as the application forms were accepted online.
This Court in Savita Budania v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCivil Writ Petition No.9062/2012, decided on 4.9.2012, while dealing with the similar controversy held as under:-
"From perusal of the documents Annex.- 5 and Annex.-6, it is apparent that the petitioner with quite diligence rectified the error committed by her. While availing examination also she mentioned her special category as an "Extra-ordinary Sportsman" in OMR sheets. The respondents, therefore, should have condoned the error and should have considered her candidature in the category of "Backward class (woman)"
with the special category of "Outstanding Sportsman". The respondents while making recruitment may avail assistance of technology but at the same time a human approach is also require to be kept in mind. The object of holding competitive test is to have best available hand and in this process merit should not be compromised just for the reason that the mechanical procedure adopted do not support the manual exercise. In the cases, if the human error is rectified with all diligence at earliest possible, a condonation of error is desirable. The (7) total ignorance of such rectification results into hardship and arbitrariness only. The non-consideration of the petitioner under her special category despite necessary correction at the earliest is highly unjust and arbitrary, as such is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
(Emphasis given) The cases in hand are also having the facts similar to the facts adjudicated in the case of Savita Budania (supra). The respondents introduced the online process for submission of application forms first time and that was through "E-Mitra Kiosk" and "Jansuvidha Kendra". The allegation of the petitioners regarding weakness of server is not absolutely ill-founded. It is also required to be kept in mind that most of the aspirants are belonging to rural areas and are coming from the lower or lower middle echelons of the society. Most of the aspirants are not having expertise with computer technology and as such at this initial stage of introduction of technology minor errors on their part are obvious and the same deserves condonation to ensure a fair selection process. The facts of the cases demand for having some space for correction in the wrong entries occurred while submitting online applications, but unfortunately that was not made available by the respondents." In the case in hand, as already stated earlier, the respondents were having all necessary details pertaining to gender of the petitioner and the category for which he applied, as such, there was no need to reject his candidature. The appropriate course available was to permit him to rectify the error.
In view of the discussion made above, the minor (8) error committed by the petitioner while filling in O.M.R. sheet deserves condonation and the answer-sheet of the petitioner deserves to be evaluated on merits. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to rectify the error in O.M.R. sheet and further to examine the same on merits. If the petitioner secures marks above the cut-off marks, then his candidature be considered for recruitment to the post of Constable in district Jaipur (Rural). No order as to costs.
[GOVIND MATHUR],J.
Pramod