Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anokhi Jat vs The High Court Of Judicature For ... on 20 August, 2024
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Madan Gopal Vyas
[2024:RJ-JD:34200-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13391/2024
Anokhi Jat D/o Shri Nanu Ram Jat, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Village Kanwar Ka Bas, Post Durjaniwas, Village Kalwar, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur,
Through Its Registrar General.
2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Poonia
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Order 20/08/2024
1. Heard.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that even though the petitioner had committed certain defaults while filling the OMR sheet, it ought not to have resulted in altogether exclusion her name from the process of selection. Referring to instructions for marking/darkening the bubbles in the OMR sheet and the instructions contained in the OMR sheet 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 petitioner that in such cases if the OMR (Downloaded on 27/08/2024 at 08:37:28 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:34200-DB] (2 of 6) [CW-13391/2024] sheet was rejected by the system for evaluation, the petitioner ought to have been given one opportunity to correct the OMR sheet by making appropriate corrections, filling or correcting already filled bubbles. Further argument is that the petitioner is meritorious and if she is excluded from the process of selection on such defaults, it may affect her 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 did not darken all the bubbles for her roll number in the OMR sheet.
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 petitioner giving detailed guidelines and instructions with regard to marking/darkening in the OMR sheet. 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 all the bubbles in the OMR sheets, clause 6 clearly stated that while 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 roll number is not indicated through (Downloaded on 27/08/2024 at 08:37:28 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:34200-DB] (3 of 6) [CW-13391/2024] 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 petitioner could not be evaluated resulting in exclusion of the petitioner 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/she 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 roll number is not correctly mentioned in the bubbles, 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 petitioner submits that the respondents ought to have evolved process to allow the petitioner 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 (Downloaded on 27/08/2024 at 08:37:28 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:34200-DB] (4 of 6) [CW-13391/2024] 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.
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 (Downloaded on 27/08/2024 at 08:37:28 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:34200-DB] (5 of 6) [CW-13391/2024] 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 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 (Downloaded on 27/08/2024 at 08:37:28 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:34200-DB] (6 of 6) [CW-13391/2024] 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. (MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ 49-Taruna/-
(Downloaded on 27/08/2024 at 08:37:28 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)