Jharkhand High Court
Ajit Kumar Gope And Ors vs The Chairman Jharkhand Public Service ... on 28 April, 2014
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Chief Justice, Shree Chandrashekhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L. P. A. No. 144 of 2014
1.Ajit Kumar Gope
2.Sanjay Prasad
3.Shamshad Quire
4.Vikash Kumar Sinha
5.Rajesh Prasad Sinha ... ... Appellants Versus
1.The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi
2.The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Appellants : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, Advocate th Order No. 2 Dated, 28 day of April, 2014 This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated 10.03.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1176 of 2014 by which the writ petition was disposed of directing the Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi to consider the petitioners' representations and pass appropriate order within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order.
2. In pursuance of the Advertisement No. 6/2013 issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, the appellants applied for 5th combined Civil Services (PT) Examination, 2013. Provisional admitcards were issued to the appellants. The appellants appeared in the examination and filled up the OMR Sheets. The appellants did not colour the bubbles against the subject code, though the details of subject code, roll no. etc. were given in writing. The respondentauthorities rejected the OMR Sheets of the appellants on the ground that the appellants have not coloured the bubbles against the subject code. The appellant made specific request to the respondentauthorities to evaluate their OMR Sheets, but nothing has been done. Being aggrieved by the same, 2 the appellants filed W.P.(C) No.1176 of 2014 seeking for a direction to the respondents to publish the result of the 5th combined Civil Services (PT) Examination, 2013 held by the JPSC. The same was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 10.03.2014 directing the respondents to consider the appellants' representations and pass appropriate order within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the appellants in writing. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
3. Mr. Prashant Pallav, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants have to fill the subject column in the OMR Sheets vide Annexure 4 and the appellants have not coloured the bubbles for the subject code and therefore, the respondents were not justified in rejecting the OMR Sheets of the appellants. In this regard, according to the appellants, the OMR Sheets also contain the signature of the Invigilator for taking the information given by the candidates and while so, the respondents ought to have evaluated the answer sheets of the appellants. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in WritA No. 1625 of 2013 dated 11.01.2013.
4. Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn our attention to the admitcards issued to the appellants (Annexure 2 series) and submitted that as per the instructions in the admitcards, five mandatory instructions were given to the candidates and in case of incomplete/incorrect filling / shadowing of the bubbles in the OMR Sheets, the OMR Scanning Machine will reject the OMR Sheets and since the appellants have not correctly filled the OMR Sheets as per the mandatory directions, the OMR Scanning Machine rejected the OMR Sheets. It was further submitted that in compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge, the representations of the appellants was 3 also considered and the same was rejected by the JPSC vide an order passed in the last week of March and the same was also communicated to the appellants. In the admitcard (Annexure2 series) interalia the following mandatory instructions have been given to the candidates regarding filling of the OMR sheets :
"OMR 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 candidates, OMR Scanning machine will reject OMR sheet in which Roll no., Centre Code, Subject Code, Booklet Series and Booklet no. are not properly and correctly shadowed.
Please use only Blue or Black Ball Point pen to mark your OMR sheet. Pens with any other colour or Pencil are prohibited"
5. It is the stand of the J.P.S.C. that, since the appellants have not filled in the OMR sheets as per the mandatory instructions by shadowing the bubbles in the OMR sheets, the OMR scanning machine rejected the OMR sheets and the representations of the appellants were also considered and rejected by the JPSC in the last week of March, 2014.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have not received the rejection of their representations.
7. We direct the respondentJPSC to communicate the order of rejection of the representations of the appellants, if not communicated, within a period of one week.
8. This Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid direction. However, the appellants are at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law, if they are so advised.
(R. Banumathi, C.J.) (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) R. Shekhar/Tanuj