Jharkhand High Court
Kumar Sanu Yadav vs The Chairman on 3 November, 2020
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.2565 of 2020
-----
Kumar Sanu Yadav .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi.
2. The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi.
4. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi.
5. Examination Coordinator, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate
-----
Order No.03 Date: 03.11.2020
1. This case is taken up through video conferencing.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to check and publish the result of the petitioner relating to Combined Assistant Engineer PT Exam, which was held on 19.01.2020 (result published on 14.08.2020), wherein he was not declared as successful in the category of BC-II candidate. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 06.02.2020, wherein the petitioner has prayed for checking his OMR sheet of the said exam.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-
Jharkhand Public Service Commission published an advertisement inviting online applications for recruitment of Combined Assistant Engineer (Regular) vide Advertisement No. 05/2019. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Mechanical Engineer and appeared in the Combined Assistant Engineer PT examination which was held on 19.01.2020. It is further submitted that during the course of examination the petitioner committed mistake while mentioning the roll number in the OMR sheet and shadowed two circles. The said mistake was reported to the Examination Co-ordinator who instructed the petitioner not to erase circle or correct his shadowing as it will not cause any hindrance in checking the OMR sheet. The petitioner -2- followed the instruction of the examination co-coordinator and submitted his OMR sheet after solving all the questions. The respondents issued answer key for the said exam and the petitioner found that he scored 197 marks in the examination. The result of the said examination was published on 14.08.2020 in which the petitioner was not declared successful, however, the cut off marks was 182 in BC-II category to which the petitioner belongs. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to know about his result and is also willing to know that whether his OMR sheet was considered or not. The action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 06.02.2020 is arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable. The petitioner cannot be held responsible for the mistake done by the examination coordinator, as he followed his instruction.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC submits that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had committed mistake in filling the OMR sheet and on this score alone he is not entitled for any relief under the writ jurisdiction. It is submitted that OMR sheet is electronically processed and any mistake in filling the OMR sheet leads to cancellation of the candidature of a candidate.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to publish his result relating to Combined Assistant Engineer PT Exam. It is the own stand of the petitioner that he had committed mistake in shadowing the circle of roll number in the OMR sheet.
6. I would like to refer a judgment rendered in the case of Bhanu Priya Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in 2018 (3) JLJR 691, wherein identical issue had arisen before this court and while rejecting the prayer of the candidate, the Court 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 -3- 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 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, -4- 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."
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 Annexure-3 (Provisional Admit Card of the petitioner). 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. Thus, the petitioner was specifically informed by way of Instructions for Candidate incorporated in the Provisional Admit Card 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 petitioner was supposed to read the instructions carefully and fill up the required columns of the OMR sheet cautiously, but he failed to do so. Since the petitioner committed mistake in filling the OMR sheet, no direction can be issued to the respondents under equitable writ jurisdiction to publish the result of the petitioner.
-5-9. Otherwise also, the petitioner wants to become an Assistant Mechanical Engineer and such a careless approach was not expected from him. By not following the instructions given to him while appearing in the examination would mean that either he was so careless that he did not read the instructions properly or did not bother to follow the same. Such a careless approach is not expected from a person who wants to become an engineer.
10. In view of the aforesaid legal and factual position, I do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner so as to make any interference under the writ jurisdiction which is otherwise plenary in nature.
11. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/