Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Neharika Kushwah D/O Shri Pramod Singh ... vs Rajasthan High Court ... on 28 August, 2024
Bench: Inderjeet Singh, Bhuwan Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:36014-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12982/2024
Neharika Kushwah D/o Shri Pramod Singh Kushwah, Aged About
26 Years, R/o B-9, Type V Hudco Place Extension Delhi. (Roll No.
933399)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Through Registrar General,
Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat, New Building,
Dangiyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Principal
Seat, New Building, Dangiyawas Bypass, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Jaiman For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vishnu Kant Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 28/08/2024
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, humbly and most respectfully prayed that your lordships may very graciously be pleased to admit and allow this Civil Writ Petition and further;
i. By issuing appropriate writ order or direction, the petitioner's OMR sheet may kindly be checked and the petitioner may be allowed to participate in the further process of recruitment and if she falls within the merit, she may be considered for the post of Civil Judge Cadre suitable.
ii. That any other order or direction as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fair, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the (Downloaded on 29/08/2024 at 09:08:13 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:36014-DB] (2 of 9) [CW-12982/2024] case may be passed in favour of the Petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 09.04.2024 issued by the respondents, the petitioner applied for the post of Civil Judge Cadre Examination, 2024. The preliminary examination for the said post was conducted by the respondents on 23.06.2024. Thereafter, result of the said examination was declared on 15.07.2024.
3. After participating in the selection process, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 02.08.2024 seeking the relief as claimed in the prayer clause.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that while declaring the result of the candidates by the respondents on 15.07.2024, according to Note No.7, his result was withheld. His OMR sheet was not examined and has been excluded from further process of evaluation as the petitioner failed to fill the bubble against her roll number in the OMR sheet. Counsel submits that action of the respondents in excluding the petitioner from further process of evaluation is arbitrary and complete non-application of mind. Counsel further submits that it is a minor mistake committed by the petitioner. Counsel further submits that due to inadvertence, the petitioner failed to mark the circle against one of the column and the said column was left blank. However, she has mentioned the roll number in numerical form in the OMR sheet. Counsel further submits that as per the instructions for the candidates issued by the respondents for preliminary examination, according to instruction No.14, the word may have been mentioned for any wrong committed by the candidate while excluding the candidate (Downloaded on 29/08/2024 at 09:08:13 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:36014-DB] (3 of 9) [CW-12982/2024] from the process of evaluation. Counsel further submits that the respondents be directed to evaluate the OMR sheet of the petitioner.
5. In support of the contention, counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Neelam Kumari Vs. Yogender Singh & Ors. (CMPMO No.14/2015 decided on 19.06.2015) where in Para No.10, it has been held as under:-
"10. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the Statute, the provisions of the CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice."
6. Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Kumar Bharti & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal No.29794/2016 decided on 19.03.2018).
7. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11861/2024 in the matter of Payal Soni & Anr. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Anr. decided on 23.07.2024 which reads as under:-
(Downloaded on 29/08/2024 at 09:08:13 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:36014-DB] (4 of 9) [CW-12982/2024] "1. Heard.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even though the petitioners had committed certain defaults while filling the OMR sheets, it ought not to have resulted in altogether exclusion from the process of selection. Referring to instructions for marking/darkening the bubbles in the OMR sheets and the instructions contained in the OMR sheets as also in the advertisement, it is submitted that there is no specific declaration given to the effect that if proper darkening is not done or darkening is not done, it would necessarily result in excluding the candidate from the process of selection. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that in such cases if the OMR sheets were rejected by the system for evaluation, the petitioners ought to have been given one opportunity to correct the OMR sheets by making appropriate corrections, filling or correcting already filled bubbles. Further argument is that the petitioners are meritorious and if they are excluded from the process of selection on such defaults, it may affect their future career prospects.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents on advance copy draws the attention of this Court to an order dated 19.08.2021 passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India & Others vs. Jagdish Chandra Jat in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12323/2020.
4. Admittedly, petitioner no.1 did not fill and left blank the marked space for filling question booklet series. Petitioner no.2 did not darken the bubble relating to question booklet series.
5. As the examination system of evaluation of OMR sheets is based on system based evaluation mechanism using machines, the respondents issued directions and instructions to all the candidates including the petitioners giving detailed guidelines and instructions with regard to marking/darkening in the OMR sheets. The reason is that if the OMR sheet is not properly filled up as per instructions, then the same cannot be captured and evaluated by the mechanised system. Under the instructions for marking/darkening the bubbles in the OMR sheets, clause 6 clearly stated that while (Downloaded on 29/08/2024 at 09:08:13 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:36014-DB] (5 of 9) [CW-12982/2024] filling/darkening the series of QPB-Question Paper Book in the OMR sheet, bubble of series wrongly darkened or darkened by wrong method or darkened multiple bubbles or not darkened bubble or spread of ink over the bubble may disrupt the evaluation process. The OMR instructions also insist proper marking. If the question booklet series is not indicated through proper marking and darkening of the bubble, it is obvious that the OMR sheet cannot be evaluated in the system. It is for this reason that the OMR sheet of the petitioners could not be evaluated resulting in exclusion of the petitioners from the process of selection.
6. It is of utmost importance that in order to preserve the sanctity of the selection process for filling up posts under public employment that the entire process is not only clearly laid down but is scrupulously followed not only by the Examination Agency but also by the candidates who choose to appear in the examination. The candidate in order to ensure that he is allowed to participate in the process of selection, is required to strictly adhere to various instructions which have been given. In a given case the violation of instructions may disrupt the process of evaluation and selection process. Where the series of the question booklet is not mentioned, the OMR is not capable of being evaluated. If such a mistake has already been committed by a candidate, there is no laid down system in the selection process to allow such candidates to remove that defect in a particular manner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents ought to have evolved process to allow the petitioners and other candidates who committed defaults in filling OMR sheets by correcting the same.
8. We are afraid, such a blanket relaxation would completely destroy the sanctity of the examination process. A proposition that after the OMR sheets are submitted, it should be again examined by some manual process or where OMR sheets are rejected by the evaluation system, it should be allowed to be corrected by the candidates, would completely derail the selection process and it will not only inordinately delay the process of selection but also raise suspicion, as such kind of practice is susceptible to misuse.(Downloaded on 29/08/2024 at 09:08:13 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:36014-DB] (6 of 9) [CW-12982/2024]
9. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Jagdish Chandra Jat (supra) faced with similar issue of non- compliance of instruction with regard to filling up OMR sheets and relying upon Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and others vs. G. Hemalathaa and another in Civil Appeal No.6669/2019 decided on 28.08.2019 observed that the instructions issued are mandatory and have to be strictly complied, as strict adherence to the terms & conditions of the instructions is of paramount importance.
10. The verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court highlighting sanctity of the instructions issued for the conduct of the examination and consequence of their violation in the case of G Hemlata and others (supra) settles the legal position in following terms:-
"7.Ms. V. Mohana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent vehemently argued that we should not exercise our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. According to her, there is no substantial question of law in the S.L.P. warranting our interference. She submitted that an error was committed by the Respondent which was rightly condoned by the High Court. She made a fervent appeal to us that the career of a meritorious backward class candidate should not be nipped at the bud.
8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent. The Instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to be strictly complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission1.
9. The High Court after summoning and perusing the answer sheet of the Respondent was convinced that there was infraction of the Instructions. However, the High Court granted the relief to the Respondent on a sympathetic consideration on humanitarian ground. The judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent in Taherakhatoon (D) By LRs v. Salambin Mohammad2 and Chandra Singh and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another3 in support of her arguments that we should not entertain this appeal in the absence of any substantial questions of law are not applicable to the facts of this case.
10. In spite of the finding that there was no adherence to the Instructions, the High Court (Downloaded on 29/08/2024 at 09:08:13 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:36014-DB] (7 of 9) [CW-12982/2024] granted the relief, ignoring the mandatory nature of the Instructions. It cannot be said that such exercise of discretion should be affirmed by us, especially when such direction is in the teeth of the Instructions which are binding on the candidates taking the examinations.
11. In her persuasive appeal, Ms. Mohana sought to persuade us to dismiss the appeal which would enable the Respondent to compete in the selection to the post of Civil Judge. It is a well-known adage that, hard cases make bad law. In Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, Venkataramiah, J., held that: (SCC 735, para 13) "13.... exercise of such power of moderation is likely to create a feeling of distrust in the process of selection to public appointments which is intended to be fair and impartial. It may also result in the violation of the principle of equality and may lead to arbitrariness. The cases pointed out by the High Court are no doubt hard cases, but hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law. In the circumstances, we lean in favour of a strict construction of the Rules and hold that the High Court had no such power under the Rules."
12. Roberts, CJ. in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Inc held that: (SCC Online US SC) :
"Extreme cases often test the bounds of established legal principles. There is a cost to yielding to the desire to correct the extreme case, rather than adhering to the legal principle. That cost has been demonstrated so often that it is captured in a legal aphorism: "Hard cases make bad law."
13. After giving a thoughtful consideration, we are afraid that we cannot approve the judgment of the High Court as any order in favour of the candidate who has violated the mandatory Instructions would be laying down bad law. The other submission made by Ms.Mohana that an order can be passed by us under Article 142 of the Constitution which shall not be treated as a precedent also does not appeal to us."
11. Relying upon the aforesaid dictum, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Jagdish Chandra Jat held that mistakes so committed by the candidate, cannot be allowed to be corrected and the only course open is to exclude such candidate from the process of selection.
12. In view of above consideration, following the declaration of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and orders passed by this Court in similar cases referred to herein above, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed."
(Downloaded on 29/08/2024 at 09:08:13 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:36014-DB] (8 of 9) [CW-12982/2024]
8. Learned Senior counsel further submits that in the admission card issued by the respondents, according to clause No.9 of the admission card, the OMR sheet of the petitioner has rightly not been evaluated by the respondents. Instruction No.9 of the admit card of the instructions reads as under:-
"OMR Answer sheets of the candidates who darken the bubbles of Roll Number/Answer any Questions/Question Paper booklet Series or darken multiple bubbles or by wrong method or do not darken the bubbles or used whitener to erase the earlier darkened bubble or spread of ink over the bubbles shall be excluded from the process of evaluation."
9. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the petitioner herself was negligent in not reading the instructions carefully and left one column blank against her roll number.
10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. This writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons:-
(i) The petitioner has filed this writ petition after participating in the examination process and that too without challenging the instructions issued by the respondents vide order dated 15.07.2024 as well as mentioned in the admit card.
(ii) The issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Payal Soni (supra).
(iii) In view of the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, no case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2024 at 09:08:13 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:36014-DB] (9 of 9) [CW-12982/2024]
12. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Sudeepak/118-S (Downloaded on 29/08/2024 at 09:08:13 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)