Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chhaya Bishnoi vs The Co-Ordinator Raj. Eligibility ... on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 337/2022
Chhaya Bishnoi D/o Shri Magan Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 30
Years, Lumbaram Nagar, Lohawat Vishnawas, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The Co-Ordinator Raj. Eligibility Exam. For Teach. (Reet)-
2021, Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi
Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 04/05/2022 The instant writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant writ petition for assailing the order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2973/2022 preferred by the petitioner with the following prayers :-
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and by an appropriate writ, order or direction :
(I) the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to re-
check the OMR Answer Sheet of the petitioner for Level-I Examination from question no.127 to 150 and awarded marks to the petitioner against the right answers which mention by way of marking point in (Downloaded on 05/05/2022 at 08:36:50 PM) (2 of 3) [SAW-337/2022] circle of right option from ball pen in OMR Answer Sheet and
(ii) the respondent No.1 further directed to re-issue the fresh mark sheet to the petitioner after awarding marks against the right answers of question No.127 to 150 in OMR Answer Sheet of the petitioner for Examination of Level-I in pursuance of the advertisement No.01/2021. Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned counsel representing the petitioner-appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that Invigilator appointed for the examination was responsible for not providing the proper answer-sheet to the petitioner in time. Due to glaring mistake on part of the respondents, the petitioner lost almost 10 to 15 minutes' time and hence, she could not properly darken the bubbles in the OMR sheet for the questions Nos.127 to
150. He urged that the petitioner had indicated her intent to darken the correct answers in the OMR sheet by marking them with dots. However, paucity of time deprived her from completing the OMR sheet as required.
We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned counsel representing the petitioner, and have gone through the impugned order. The examinations were held on 26.09.2021. The petitioner made representation against the alleged mistake causing her to lose time on 25.10.2021, i.e. after nearly a month of the so-called incident. The result was declared on 02.11.2021 and the writ petition came to be filed on 21.02.2022. In view of these admitted facts, we are in consonance with the view taken by the learned Single Bench that the contention advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner that she lost time on account of the mistake of (Downloaded on 05/05/2022 at 08:36:50 PM) (3 of 3) [SAW-337/2022] the Invigilator resulting into her not being able to fill up the bubbles in the OMR sheet and that she had already indicated correct answers on the above referred questions to be far too presumptuous for the court to take cognizance thereof.
If at all the petitioner had been genuinely prevented from filling the correct answers owing to delayed handing over of the proper answer-sheet as stated in the writ petition, then nothing prevented her from raising a timely protest right at the time of examination or soon thereafter. As noted by the learned Single Bench, the representation came to be submitted by the petitioner almost a month after the examination and the writ petition came to be filed after the result was declared. Otherwise also, there is a glaring contradiction in the representation submitted by the petitioner, where she has claimed that she ticked the remaining questions by indication of "right", whereas in the writ petition, it has been claimed that she had marked "dots" on these questions. Thus, the stand taken by the petitioner in the representation and the writ petition is contradictory and cannot be reconciled.
As a consequence, we find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Bench rejecting the writ petition preferred by the petitioner. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J 105-Pramod/-
(Downloaded on 05/05/2022 at 08:36:50 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)