Jharkhand High Court
Naveen Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 March, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 JHA 286
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.3597 of 2020
-----
1. Naveen Kumar
2. Prawin Kumar
3. Krishna Kumar
4. Rajeev Kumar
5. Ravindra Kumar Yadav
6. Abhay Kumar
7. Bal Mukund Upadhyay
8. Santosh Kumar
9. Kokil Mahto
10. Aman Kumar .......... Petitioners.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
4. The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
5. The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road, Ranchi.
6. The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road, Ranchi.
7. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mohan Dubey, A.C. to A.G. For Respondent nos.5 to 7:Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate
-----
Order No.05 Date: 02.03.2021
1. This case is taken up through video conferencing.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing/setting aside the remarks "incomplete/incorrect filling of the relevant circles of the booklet series/roll number in Paper-I/Paper-II" which has been mentioned in the result of the petitioners dated 14.08.2020, published on the website of Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short 'JPSC') for Combined Assistant Engineer Preliminary Test (PT) Examination pursuant to the Advertisement No.05/2019. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to call for the original copy of OMR answer sheets of the petitioners in respect of the said examination of Paper-II. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to evaluate the OMR answer sheets of the -2- petitioners in respect of the said examination of Paper-II and revise their results and further to declare them successful, if they have got more marks than the last selected candidate.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent-
Jharkhand Public Service Commission published an advertisement vide Advertisement No.05/2019 inviting online applications for recruitment of Combined Assistant Engineer. The petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Mechanical/Civil Engineer and appeared in the Combined Assistant Engineer PT examination which was held on 19.01.2020. It is further submitted that the result of the said examination was uploaded on the Website of the JPSC on 14.08.2020, however, the petitioners were not declared successful by putting remarks "Incomplete/Incorrect filling of the relevant circle of booklet series/roll number in Paper-I/Paper-II." It is submitted that the petitioners have secured more marks than the last selected candidates in their respective categories and trades/branches in PT examination, as would be evident from the answer sheet published by the respondent-JPSC. It is further submitted that JPSC has violated the essential provisions i.e. Clause- 2(vii) of the resolution, as contained in memo no.3143 dated 13.04.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, regarding supply of carbon copy of OMR answer sheets to the examinees after completion of PT Examination. The concerned respondent did not appreciate the aforesaid provision contained in the resolution dated 13.04.2016 and did not supply the carbon copy of OMR answer sheet to the petitioners, which is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. It is also submitted that due to the illegal action of the respondent- JPSC, the petitioners have been deprived of getting selected in the PT examination. It is a settled principle of law that meritorious candidates should not miss out an opportunity of earning their livelihood merely because of some inadvertent mistakes occurred due to examination stress. It is submitted that availing equal opportunity to complete in the selection process for public employment is a fundamental right enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No impediment which is merely -3- technical in nature should be allowed to play a substantive role resulting in denial of such right.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC submits that all the petitioners committed mistake in filling the OMR sheets and on the said score alone, they are not entitled for any relief under the writ jurisdiction. OMR answer sheets are electronically processed and any mistake in filling the same leads to cancellation of the candidature of the examinee. It is further submitted that the aforesaid resolution dated 13.04.2016 was issued for the combined civil services competitive examination and the same is not applicable to the case of the petitioners. Moreover, the challenge to the selection process cannot be made by unsuccessful candidates.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners have though claimed violation of the said resolution dated 13.04.2016 by not furnishing the carbon copies of the OMR answer sheets to them, yet they did not controvert the stand of the respondent-JPSC that all the petitioners have committed mistakes in filling/shadowing the required circles in the OMR answer sheet.
6. Under the aforesaid factual context, it would be relevant to refer a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Bhanu Priya Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in 2018 (3) JLJR 691, wherein identical issue had arisen. This Court, while dismissing the said writ petition, has held as under:-
"6. It is worth to mention that in a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5803 of 2016 [Mishra Somesh Kumar Shiv Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.] filed against the rejection of the candidature due to wrong shadowing of the bubbles of OMR sheet in 5th Combined Civil Service (Mains Examination), 2015, a Bench of this Court dismissed the said writ petition vide order dated 09.01.2017 with following observation:
"The petitioner, in paragraph no. 7 of the writ petition, has himself admitted that he darkened the bubble under the Centre Code wrongly. It is admitted at Bar that the entire system of evaluation of OMR sheet is fully computerised and no manual interference is permitted. It is stated that in the question booklet/OMR sheet etc. instruction was printed that, OMR answer sheet will be processed electronically and OMR Scanning machine will reject OMR sheet in which Roll number, Centre Code, Subject Code, Booklet Series and Booklet number are not properly and correctly shadowed. The OMR sheet of the petitioner which was wrongly darkened at one place, obviously -4- was rejected by the computer and while so, no direction can be issued to the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission to re-assess or to accept the marks which was published on the website, wrongly."
7. The said order was challenged by the candidate in L.P.A. No. 55 of 2017 which was also dismissed by the learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.09.2017 with following observations:-
"........... 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.
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, 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, 2 016, as submitted by the -5- 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."
8. It is the prime duty of a candidate who is appearing in any examination to read the instructions provided at different stages carefully and to ensure that the OMR sheet is filled up as per the instructions and if a candidate makes any fault due to his/her carelessness, no direction can be issued by the Writ Court in favour of such candidate. If the prayer of the petitioner is allowed, it would open a Pandora box for several candidates taking one or the other ground seeking intervention of the Writ Court which would in fact nullify the specific instructions provided to the candidates before and during the examination."
7. I have also gone through the instructions given in the Provisional Admit Card of the petitioners (Annexure-4 to this writ petition). Clause 4 of the said instructions reads as under:-
"4. 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 of OMR sheet, will be the sole responsibility of the candidate. OMR scanning Machine will reject OMR sheet in which Roll No. & Booklet Series are not properly and correctly (in word or number or both as required) shadowed as filled up in OMR sheet."
8. It would, thus, be evident that the petitioners were specifically informed by way of 'instructions for candidate' incorporated in the provisional admit cards supplied to the petitioners that the OMR Scanning Machine would reject OMR sheet in which roll number and booklet series were not properly and correctly filled up/shadowed in the respective columns of OMR Sheet. The petitioners were supposed to read the instructions carefully and fill up the required columns of the OMR sheet cautiously, but they failed to do so.
9. It is evident from the OMR sheets of the petitioners, annexed by the JPSC with the counter affidavit dated 18.01.2021 and supplementary counter affidavit dated 12.02.2021, that the petitioners committed mistake in filling/shadowing the required circles of the booklet series/roll number and in some cases, omitted to do so. Since the petitioners committed mistake in properly filling the OMR sheets, no direction can be issued to the respondents under equitable writ jurisdiction to publish the result of the petitioners.
10. Otherwise also, such careless approach is not expected from the petitioners who want to be Assistant Mechanical Engineers/Assistant -6- Civil Engineers. By not following the clear instructions while appearing in the examination would mean that either they were so careless that he did not read the instructions properly or did not bother to follow the same.
11. So far the contention of the petitioners that the carbon copies of the OMR sheets were not supplied to them by the respondent-JPSC, the petitioners have raised such objection only after being disqualified in the examination and thus at this stage the same cannot be entertained.
12. In view of the aforesaid legal and factual position, I do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioners so as to make any interference under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction which is otherwise plenary in nature.
13. The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/AFR