Allahabad High Court
Amar Pal Singh & Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Rural ... on 2 March, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 240
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Reserved on: 07.01.2021 Delivered on: 02.03.2021 Court No. - 20 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2503 of 2019 Petitioner :- Amar Pal Singh & Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Rural Development & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Raghave,Mohit Dwivedi, Randhir Singh, Sandeep Kumar, Vivek Dhaka Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
1. The petition has been filed with the following two main prayers:-
"(i) issue a suitable writ, order or direction holding the copies of OMR sheets (Annexurs No.13 to 18) provided to the petitioners as tempered and quashing its ill effect of such tempering brought upon the result of the petitioners in the selection process, precisely, the Village Development Officers (General Selection), 2016 initiated by issuance of Advertisement No.03-Pariksha/2016 by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Selection Commission, Lucknow;
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or likewise thereby commanding the opposite parties competent to produce original of the OMR sheets of the petitioners in the Village Development Officers (General Selection), 2016 initiated by issuance of Advertisement No.03-Pariksha/2016 by Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection Commission, Lucknow.
..............."
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-
(i) Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Staff Selection Commission, Lucknow issued Advertisement No.03-Pariksha/2016 regarding Village Development Officer (General Selection) 2016 against 3133 vacant posts of Village Development Officer. As per the advertisement, the last date of registration was 06.02.2016 and last date for submission of application form was 10.02.2016. Essential educational qualifications for applying on the said post were Intermediate with Science or Agriculture, or equivalent, and CCC certificate in Computer operation. Selection was to be made in three stages i.e. written examination, physical test and interview as per provisions made under the Uttar Pradesh Group C Direct Recruitment (Police and Procedure) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred as 'Rules 2016').
(ii) Being eligible, the petitioners applied for the post of Village Development Officer. They appeared in the written examination held on 05.06.2016. The admit cards calling the petitioners for Physical Test was also issued, which held on 16.11.2016 and the petitioners participated therein also. Subsequently, the petitioners were issued call letters for interview and they appeared therein also.
(iii) Cut-off marks under various categories were declared by UPSSSC vide Notice dated 20.07.2018 and on the basis of written examination and interview, final result was declared. The petitioners could not score the required cut-off marks to get selected in the aforesaid examination. Averments in the writ petition is that the petitioners have performed better than the marks awarded to them and tampering has been done with their OMR sheets .
Hence, the instant writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under the orders passed in different writ petitions, the petitioners have availed scanned copies of their respective OMR sheets. It is submitted that OMR sheets of the petitioners have been tampered. Learned counsel has submitted that the OMR sheets as provided to the petitioner have circles darkened which the petitioners did not do whereas the circles darkened by them have been rubbed out.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the petitioners have been deprived from their selection due to tampering in their OMR sheets. In such circumstances, they have prayed that their original OMR sheets may be produced and the OMR sheets provided to them may be declared tampered.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 has vehemently opposed the submissions made by petitioners' counsel and submitted that the petitioners could not score the required cut-off marks to get selected in the aforesaid examination, therefore, they have been declared unsuccessful.
6. Learned counsel has submitted that the allegation of the petitioners regarding tampering with their OMR sheets, is completely baseless and without support of any material.
7. Learned counsel has relied on a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. - (2018) 2 SCC 357 and submitted that the Court should not interfere in the process of scrutinizing the answer sheets of the candidates and should presume the correctness of the key answers, and in case of any doubt, the benefit should be given to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
8. Learned counsel has submitted that the aforesaid dictum has also been reiterated by this Court in the case of Sudesh Kumar Kashyap v. State of U.P. & Ors. - Writ Petition No.11800 (SS) of 2017 decided on 29.08.2018.
9. It is also submitted that there is no provision which facilitates the production of original OMR sheets, therefore, the same cannot be provided to the petitioners. It is also submitted that the petitioners having participated in the selection process without any demur or protest cannot be allowed to turn around and question the same after the results have been declared and they have been declared unsuccessful in the selection process. In such circumstances, learned counsel has submitted that the instant petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
10. Short counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties and are available on record.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. It is an admitted fact that the cut-off marks were declared by UPSSSC vide Notice dated 20.07.2018. On the basis of written examination and interview, final result was declared in which the petitioners could not score the qualifying marks and were declared unsuccessful.
13. A table enumerating the category-wise final cut-off marks compared with the marks obtained by the petitioners has been provided in Para - 14 of the short counter affidavit dated 05.10.2020 filed by respondent no.3, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
PETITIONERS CATEGORY WRITTEN (80)/SET INTERVIEW (20) TOTAL (100) CUT-OFF MARKS REQUIRED AMAR PAL SINGH OBC 64/D 10 74 77 3 SHIV NARAYAN OBC 58/A 14 72 77 5 KISHAN SHARAN GC 64/A 12 76 78 2 SUBODH KUMAR OBC 59/D 16 75 77 2 DEVANKUL OBC 62/C 10 72 77 5 GAURAV KUMAR GC 64/D 12 76 78 2
14. Claim of the petitioners is that certain manipulation has been done in their OMR sheets and circles darkened by them in the OMR sheets have been rubbed out and in those places, some other circles have been darkened.
15. The core issue before this Court for adjudication is that merely on the allegation made by unsuccessful candidates, which has been denied by UPSSSC in their short counter affidavit, the Writ Court may interfere in the selection process for correctness of answer sheets or not, and whether the original OMR sheets of the petitioners can be summoned.
16. In the case of Ran Vijay Singh's case (supra), the following has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para Nos.30.3, 30.4 & 30.5:-
"..............
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate--it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;.
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate."
17. In H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur - (2010) 6 SCC 759, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court."
18. Any interference in the result of an examination should be in a rare and exceptional circumstances and to very limited extent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta - (1983) 4 SCC 309, has held as follows:-
"16..........the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct......."
19. In other words, the onus is on the candidate to clearly demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect and that too without any inferential process or reasoning. The burden on the candidate is, therefore, rather heavy and the constitutional courts must be extremely cautious in entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of a key answer. To prevent such challenges, this Court recommended a few steps to be taken by the examination authorities and among them are: (i) establishing a system of moderation; (ii) avoid any ambiguity in the questions, including those that might be caused by translation; and (iii) prompt decision be taken to exclude the suspect question and no marks be assigned to it.
20. In the instant case, the allegation of the petitioner is that inspite of better performance in the aforesaid examination, the petitioners got less marks than the other candidates who have succeeded in the examination and also that tampering has been done with their OMR sheets.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh's case (supra) has held as follows:-
"32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination -- whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."
22. In view of the above, the questions of forgery, fraud and tampering raised in present case would require elaborate evidence, and are not capable of summary adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
23. For the reasons aforesaid, the present writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
24. The petitioners are however at liberty to take such other remedy as may be available to him in law, if they are so advised.
Order Date :- 02.03.2021 nishant/-
(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.)