Jharkhand High Court
Mishra Somesh Kumar Shiv Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief ... on 20 September, 2017
Author: D.N.Patel
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra, D.N.Patel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 55 of 2017
--
Mishra Somesh Kumar Shiv Kumar son of Shiv Kumar, resident of Quarter No. 228 B, Jharna Colony, Sahebganj, Sahebganj College Campus, PO and PS Jerwabadi, District- Sahebganj (Jharkhand).
...Appellant Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Jharkhand Government, having its office at Near Project Building, PO and PS Dhurwa, District- Ranchi;
2. Secretary (Personnel), Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO and PS Dhurwa, District-Ranchi;
3. Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, PO and PS Kotwali, Circular Road, District-Ranchi;
4. Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road, PO and PS Kotwali, District-Ranchi;
5. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road, PO and PS Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
... Respondents
---
CORAM :- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Jai Shankar Tripathi, Advocate.
For the State : JC to Sr.S.C.-I;
For Resp. Nos.3,4 &5 : Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, Advocate 11/ Dated 20.09.2017:
(Oral Order) Per D.N.Patel, A.C.J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.01.2017, delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 5803 of 2016, whereby, the petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed.
2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant is an original petitioner, who has approached the learned Single Judge by way of filing writ petition, being aggrieved of rejection of his candidature for appointment, pursuant to 5th Combined Civil Services (Mains) Examination-2015. It further appears that artificial intelligence and primary scrutiny by machine has created the 2 problem for this appellant. Certain bubbles were to be darken for giving Roll Number, Paper Code, Centre Code etc. There are various types of details to be given in the form of darkening of circles, which are at the first page of the answer sheet. This may be unusual for few candidates, but, this is a normal and routine phenomena for rest of the candidates. 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.
3. 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, 3 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.
Now-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.
4. Aforesaid facts and reasons have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(S) No. 5803 of 2016 vide judgment and order dated 09.01.2017, preferred by this appellant. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(D.N. Patel, A.C.J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra,J.) SD/SB