Ashish Kumar Bharti And Anr vs Human Resources Department on 9 July, 2015

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Ashish Kumar Bharti And Anr vs Human Resources Department on 9 July, 2015

These two petitioners were candidates for appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher(T.G.T.) in Upgraded Secondary School which examination was conducted by the Jharkhand Academic Council (J.A.C.) on 29.8.2012. The examination contained two papers, first was objective type test and second was subjective type test. The terms of the advertisement, which is at Annexure- 2 indicate at Clause(Cha) that answers of paper two would not be evaluated if a candidate failed to obtain the minimum qualifying marks in paper one. The respondent- JAC, however has published information of individual candidates relating to non recommendation of their candidature in their website. In the case of petitioners, such document at Annexure-5 and 9 shows that they have obtained 221 marks and 224 marks respectively in paper 2. Petitioners become aggrieved as the candidates having lesser marks in paper two were recommended for appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher by JAC. Result of one or the other is shown at Annexure-6, one of whom Suresh Kumar Harizan belonging to Schedule Caste Category has secured 210 marks. Few other candidates name were also there having lesser marks than the petitioners in the Schedule Caste category. -2- The contention of the petitioners is that if the respondent- JAC has published the result of paper two of both the petitioners , it means that they have qualified in paper one, as per the terms of the advertisement. Therefore, there is no reason for JAC to not recommend their names to the State Government for appointment.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the JAC has submitted that paper one was objective type test, the answers of which were to be filled up in OMR sheet as per instructions. Both the petitioners did not inscribe the relevant circle relating to their Roll number in correct manner. Therefore their first paper was not evaluated by the computer. A photo copy of such OMR sheet has been produced by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the JAC, which shows that petitioner no.1 has incorrectly marked the last digit of his Roll number by inscribing it in different circle. His Roll Number is 21002331, while the petitioner no.2 has not marked one of the digit 'zero' at all in the circle relating to inscription of Roll number 20802608.

Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the original OMR sheet has not been produced and the photo copy produced by respondent- JAC may not be authentic document. It is also submitted on his behalf that petitioners' paper one have been evaluated but later on such plea has been taken on the behalf of JAC in a malafide manner. It is also submitted that the conditions incorporated in the advertisement clearly laid down that paper two can only be evaluated after the candidate has qualified in the first paper. It would mean that petitioners have qualified in the first paper as the result of second paper were shown in the website. Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the instructions given in the question -3- booklet at Annexure-4 as per which in respect of the column relating to answer to the question, clear cut instructions are there but in relation to column to fill up the name, roll number, question booklet number, question booklet series, the instructions do not specify the circle which are to be marked in a particular manner. Petitioners otherwise have inscribed all the circle correctly and also inscribed their name and roll number in digits in the respective OMR sheet, which was sufficient for evaluation of the said papers. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court. However, neither the web copy nor the certified copy or reported judgment is produced for consideration of this Court.

Having considered the rival submission of the parties in the light of aforesaid materials on record, it appears that the main thrust of the petitioners is the information relating to the marks obtained by the petitioners in second paper subjective type would mean that they have qualified in the first paper. It however appears that the evaluation of paper two was always subject to the candidates qualifying the first paper. It is the categorical stand of the respondent- JAC that because of aforesaid error in incorrectly inscribing the circles relating to the roll number in the OMR sheet, both petitioners' first paper could be evaluated. It is also their case that mere evaluation of second paper would not improve the case of the petitioners as the mandatory requirement of qualifying in the first paper has not been fulfilled on their behalf. The photo copy of the OMR sheet are taken on record, which also shows that while inscribing the circles meant for roll number, both the petitioners have made incorrect inscription in one digit as noticed herein above. The -4- computer evaluation is a mechanical process which does not make any exception in following any instructions put to it. Both petitioners may have inscribed all other black circle correctly but because the circles meant for roll number were inscribed wrongly by them, the computer cannot be blamed for non evaluation of their answer sheet of paper one. It also appears from the model copy of the OMR sheet that instructions are also contained in the said OMR sheet relating to the marking of the circles in dark by the respective candidates including those of the Roll number.

In view of the aforesaid reasons discussed herein above and the materials facts, it cannot be said that on mere showing of the marks obtained by the said petitioners in the website relating to the second paper, they can claim that they have qualified in the first paper for recommendation of their candidature as Trained Graduate Teacher in the Upgraded Secondary Schools in the State of Jharkhand. On that ground, if the respondent- JAC has not recommended their name, it cannot be said to suffer from factual and legal infirmity.

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. Pending I.A.s also stand closed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A. Mohanty

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court