Allahabad High Court
Sachin Goel vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 6 January, 2020
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21231 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sachin Goel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri M.N.Singh for respondent nos.2 and 3.
It is contended that due to error, petitioner on the OMR sheet in place of "C" Booklet series had written "A" Booklet series, due to which his result could be affected for the post of Lecturer in Government Degree College.
Sri M.N.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Commission placed before this Court a Division Bench Judgement of this Court in Writ-A No.791 of 2019, Mahawash vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and another, in which similar controversy was decided by this Court, which is extracted hereunder:
"In the event indulgence to such candidate is granted in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction on equitable principles which certainly has no role to play in the light of the specific instructions given by the authorities, it will be not only be difficult but impossible for the authorities or the courts to draw a distinction between errors which may be of a bonafide nature and those which have been committed deliberately. Any interference on such ground by the court would virtually seal the fate of the examination which will never come to end within the scheduled time. Therefore, in the overall interest of justice, it is but necessary to adopt a strict rule in regard to public examination not to allow any candidate to take advantage of its own mistake as after all he is candidate for recruitment to a public post."
Similary in Writ-A No.66487 of 2015, Santosh Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others, a Division Bench of this Court while considering the humane error held as under:
"Humane error on one hand, for protecting individual interest vis-a-vis public interest i.e. for ensuring free/fair/transparent examination is an issue to be dealt with.
To see and ensure that identity of candidate is not reflected from the Answer Sheet and there is zero humane interference, important instructions have been issued with clear cut mention that in case there is an error, following consequences would ensue. Once instructions in question are coupled with consequences, then such instructions necessarily will have to be accepted as of being mandatory in character.
Instructions in public examination are tool in the direction of free, fair and transparent examination and once U.P. Public Service Commission has proceeded to issue instructions and the instructions in question are clear and categorical that wrong code should not be filled, failing which the answer-sheet in question should not be evaluated, then the petitioner has to blame himself for the same.
Petitioner is aspiring to become a Assistant Prosecution Officer. Petitioner, in the present case, in the OMR sheet has not only mentioned the wrong series but even at the point of time when bubbling has been done, option D has been mentioned. Even in the attendance-sheet, similar is the situation. Whenever there is a conflict in between private interest and public interest, private interest will always have to give way to public interest i.e. of ensuring free/fair/transparent examination with zero humane instructions. Even in cases of humane error, once instruction has been breached, the consequences provided for has to follow, as candidate is self responsible for the situation and uncertainty should not be attached to the selection process.
We do not know as to whether it is a deliberate error or it is an inadvertent humane error, inasmuch as, petitioner is a resident of Allahabad and he has proceeded to fill up his examination form from Agra. We do not at all know of the design of the petitioner as to why he has choosen to fill his centre as Agra and why he has been so careless and negligent in filling his OMR sheet that could easily disclose his identity.
Once such is the factual situation and the law on the subject is clear that instructions in question have to be interpreted in the context of object for which it has been framed and here, in this era of computerization, once petitioner has proceeded not to comply with the instructions and has committed error not at one place but at two places in the OMR sheet and same mistake has been repeated in attendance-sheet, then he has to blame himself and same cannot be dubbed as humane error.
Consequently, in the facts of the case, in case any directive is given to U.P. Public Service Commission to undertake such an exercise as has been prayed by the petitioner, then it would not only open flood gate, same would make way for humane intervention and give chance of manipulation and manoeuvring in the fool proof scheme prepared by U.P. Public Service Commission and any interference by us would tantamount to creating a fresh forum i.e. not provided for.
Writ petition is dismissed accordingly."
In view of the Division Bench judgments of this Court, no interference is required as petitioner should have been diligent enough while filling up the option in OMR sheet.
I do not find any force in the argument of the petitioner in the writ petition.
Writ petition stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.1.2020 AKJ