Telangana High Court
Kola Hymavathi vs State Of Ts on 9 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.18877 of 2018
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly the 3rd respondent in issuing Impugned Memo Nos.517/PET. REIS/2016, dt:21.05.2018 and in rejecting the request of the petitioners for evaluating OMR Answer sheets pertaining to Paper I in so far as 1st petitioner and Paper-II in so far as the 2nd and 3rd petitioners of the written exam for the post of Physical Education Teacher under Notification No.16/2017 dated 14.04.2017 issued by the 3rd Respondent as totally illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discrimination, colorable exercise of power, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and set-aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Physical Education Teacher under Notification No.16/2017 dated 14.04.2017 on merit by evaluating the OMR answer sheets of the Petitioners with Hall Ticket Nos.1716013970 1716005154 and 1716000403 as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.26845 of 2017 and batch. dated 30.11.2017 and pass such and further orders..."
2 JAK, J W.P.No.18877 of 2018
2. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. M.Ram Gopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3-TSPSC.
3. Brief facts of the case:
Respondent No.3 issued Notification No.16 of 2017, dated 14.04.2017, to fill up the vacancies of Physical Education Teacher under respondent No.2 Institution.
Petitioners (3 in number) applied for the said post and were issued hall tickets bearing Nos.1716013970, 1716000403 and 1716005154. Petitioners appeared for Paper-I (General Studies & General Abilities) examination on 17.09.2017 and Paper-II (Physical Education) examination on 18.09.2017. Petitioner No.1 did not bubble one digit in hall ticket number in OMR sheet of Paper-I examination.
Petitioner No.2 wrongly bubbled paper code in OMR sheet of Paper-II examination. Petitioner No.3 did not bubble one digit in hall ticket number in OMR sheet of Paper-II 3 JAK, J W.P.No.18877 of 2018 examination. Petitioners approached respondent No.3 and requested to condone the mistake and consider their candidature by evaluating OMR sheets. Respondent No.3 informed petitioners that their OMR sheets would not be evaluated. Final key was published on 17.11.2017. It is the case of petitioners that if their candidature was considered by evaluating OMR sheets, they had fair chance of securing employment.
3.1 Grievance of petitioners is that pursuant to directions of this Court in W.P.No.26845 of 2017 and batch, dated 30.11.2017, respondent No.3 TSPSC condoned inadvertent mistakes of wrong bubbling of hall ticket number, booklet code, etc., with respect to recruitment to the posts of Trained Graduate Teacher (TG) and Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) and that opportunity was granted to the petitioners therein along with other candidates and hence, their cases be considered as per the orders of this Court in W.P.No.26845 of 2017 and batch.
4 JAK, J W.P.No.18877 of 2018 3.2 It is the case of petitioners that instead of extending the benefit of orders of this Court in W.P.No.26845 of 2017 and batch, respondent No.3 rejected the representation of the petitioners. It is averred that rejection of their cases by respondent No.3 amounts to disobeying the orders of this Court. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that pursuant to the Notification issued by respondent No.3, petitioners applied to the post of Physical Education Teacher and appeared for examinations. It is further submitted that petitioners have invested lot of time and put in hard work and have prepared diligently. It is also submitted that petitioners made mistake by not bubbling OMR sheets properly. It is stated that such errors can be corrected by respondent No.3 in view of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.26845 of 2017 and batch, dated 30.11.2017.
5 JAK, J W.P.No.18877 of 2018 4.1 Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.38710 of 2017 and batch, dated 12.12.2017, wherein respondents therein were directed to evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioners therein. Learned counsel submitted that in the Memo dated 22.06.2018 issued by respondent No.3 TSPSC, it is stated that the plea of petitioner No.1 i.e., Kola Hymavathi, for evaluation of OMR answer sheet would be considered and that she will be considered for certificate verification process, if she comes within the zone of consideration based on merit, zone, community, category etc., subject to final orders. It is further submitted that petitioners' cases be considered as per directions of this Court in W.P.No.26845 of 2017 and batch, as the cases of other candidates were considered and their candidature was considered in the final outcome. It is also submitted that non-consideration of petitioners' case would amount to 6 JAK, J W.P.No.18877 of 2018 discrimination and the principle of legitimate expectation is attracted.
5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 TSPSC submitted that pursuant to the notification, petitioners have appeared in the examination and have committed errors while bubbling. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 did not bubble one digit in hall ticket number in OMR sheet of Paper-I (General Studies and General Abilities), petitioner No.2 wrongly bubbled paper code in OMR sheet of Paper-II (Physical Education) and that petitioner No.3 did not bubble one digit in hall ticket number in OMR sheet of Paper-II (Physical Education). It is also submitted that respondent No.3 rightly rejected the requests of petitioners as the same cannot be condoned. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1369 of 2018 and batch, wherein a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 19.07.2021, held that errors committed by wrong bubbling 7 JAK, J W.P.No.18877 of 2018 or double bubbling or absence of bubbling in the hall ticket numbers cannot be considered on ground of compassion or generosity and that there would be no place in public examinations conducted by an Examination Regulatory Authority like the TSPSC. Hence, the case of petitioners cannot be considered in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1369 of 2018 and batch.
6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions.
7. Pursuant to Notification No.16 of 2017, dated 14.04.2017, petitioners made application for the post of Physical Education Teacher under respondent No.2 Institution. They were allotted hall ticket numbers and have appeared for Paper-I and II examinations on 17.09.2017 and 18.09.2017 respectively. It is evident from the record that 8 JAK, J W.P.No.18877 of 2018 Petitioner No.1 did not bubble one digit in hall ticket number in OMR sheet of Paper-I examination.
Petitioner No.2 wrongly bubbled paper code in OMR sheet of Paper-II examination.
Petitioner No.3 did not bubble one digit in hall ticket number in OMR sheet of Paper-II examination.
8. Petitioners approached respondent No.3 requesting to condone the mistake and they were informed that their answer sheets would not be evaluated. The grievance of the petitioners is that their cases be considered as per the orders of this Court in W.P.No.26845 of 2017 and batch. Learned Single Judge by order, dated 30.11.2017, in W.P.No.26845 of 2017 and batch, held as follows:
"24. Though the orders in W.P.Nos.41273 of 2016 and 3708 of 2016 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in identical circumstances were upheld by this Court when the Tribunals dismissed the applications of the candidates, no reasons were assigned by the respective Division Benches while upholding the orders. Hence, they do not provide any guidance.
9 JAK, J W.P.No.18877 of 2018
25. All the decisions on this point were considered by a learned single Judge of this Court in Shiramdas Mahesh v. Telangana State Public Service Commission (W.P.No.3862 of 2017 dated 24.04.2017) in a case arising out of the candidates' answer scripts not evaluated on the ground that the personal particulars of the petitioners were not filled in or circles were not darkened and there was double entry for one particular box. He chose to follow the order in W.P.No.41273 of 2016 and dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the said order was later in point of time. But, his attention was not drawn to the Division Bench decision of this Court in Union of India v. Guduru Raja Surya Praveen (2015 SCC Online Hyd 437).
26. I already held that the Division Bench order in W.P.No.41273 of 2016 or in W.P.No.20088 of 2003 does not contain any reasons and hence does not operate as a binding precedent on me while deciding the present dispute.
27. Lastly, an attempt was made to show another order in W.P.No.17900 of 2017 of a Division Bench of this Court dated 08.06.2017 which confirmed the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.780 of 2011 dated 20.07.2011 dismissing the application of the candidate in identical circumstance by following the order in W.P.No.20088 of 2003. All the three Division Bench decisions are not binding precedents as they did not contain reasons and they merely affirm the orders of the Tribunal.
28. An opportunity comes once in a life time to many persons. That opportunity cannot be taken away by taking the aid of an un-intentional mistake committed by such person in life. All the examinations conducted for employment or for seats in Colleges are competitive and that competition cannot be eliminated by virtue of mistakes committed by the candidates unintentionally and not 10 JAK, J W.P.No.18877 of 2018 related to the merit of the candidate. One has to see the intention behind the mistake when it can be discerned. The mistake relating to the booklet number, question number, hall ticket number and the personal particulars of the candidate will not have any bearing on the substantive merit of the candidate. In the examination hall, where a competitive examination is held, the mental condition of the candidate would be different and it is prone to committing mistakes. Unless those mistakes are related to the merit of the candidate, to the extent they can be condoned can be condoned and an opportunity should be given to the candidate to compete along with others. In the above cases, the candidates admittedly committed a mistake in bubbling the relevant hall ticket number/roll number, though in the boxes provided they have correctly written the number. Thus, the answer scripts can be easily identified, though it cannot be processed by the computer. Even if it involves some manual error, such type of answer scripts can be valued as it does not relate to the merit of the candidate.
29. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that these Writ Petitions are liable to be allowed and they are, accordingly, allowed. The second respondent is directed to evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioners and depending on the marks obtained by them, shall take further action. There shall be no order as to costs."
9. This Court has perused the order passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26845 of 2017 and batch. The case of petitioners in W.P.No.26845 of 2017 and batch, pertains to correction of mistakes in darkening the circles in OMR 11 JAK, J W.P.No.18877 of 2018 sheet. Learned Single Judge by order, dated 30.11.2017, directed respondent No.2 therein to evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioners and to take suitable action basing on the marks obtained. It is not in dispute that pursuant to orders in W.P.No.26845 of 2017 and batch and other similar orders, petitioners approached respondent No.3 TSPSC and respondent No.3, relying on the orders, issued Memo dated 22.06.2018 stating that petitioner No.1 i.e., Kola Hymavathi's plea for evaluation of answer sheet would be considered and that she will be considered for certificate verification process, if she falls within the zone of consideration basing on merit, zone, community or category etc., subject to the final orders of this Court.
10. It is pertinent to note that in W.A.No.1369 of 2018 and batch, a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with wrong bubbling or double bubbling or absence of bubbling of their personal particulars in OMR sheet, held as follows:
12 JAK, J W.P.No.18877 of 2018 "15. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the errors committed by the petitioners of wrong bubbling/double bubbling and/or absence of bubbling in the hall ticket numbers are bona fide errors and can be easily corrected, is untenable. Tough as it may sound, compassion or generosity of the heart has no place in public examinations conducted by an Examination Regulatory Authority like the TSPSC. The petitioners ought to have carefully read the instructions issued by the TSPSC and correctly filled in their personal details, hall ticket number etc., in the OMR sheet, as mandated. Once it is admitted that the entries made were inaccurate due to which the answer sheets of the petitioners were not evaluated and in view of the fact that evaluation in such cases is an electronic process undertaken through scanners, with no human intervention, we are of the opinion that no directions can be issued to the TSPSC to conduct manual scanning of the weeded out answer scripts to collate and declare the results of the petitioners.
16. The dichotomy in the decisions of the two Division Benches of the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.20088 of 2003 and W.P.No.28874 of 2015 stands adequately answered in the light of the view expressed by the Supreme Court in G.Hemalatha (Civil Appeal No.6669 of 2019, dated 28.08.2019) wherein emphasis has been laid on a strict construction of the rules and of forbearance by the High Courts in exercising extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to modify and/or relax the instructions issued by the Examining Authority, which would result in violating the instructions issued to candidates participating in public examinations.
17. In view of the above discussion, the present petitions are dismissed, along with the pending applications, if any.
The respondent/TSPSC is directed to take immediate steps to issue letters of appointment in favour of the successful 13 JAK, J W.P.No.18877 of 2018 candidates in their respective categories to the posts that have remained unfilled in view of the interim order dated 19.07.2018.
18. For the very same reasons as stated above, TSPSC succeeds in W.A.No.1369 of 2018 and the impugned order dated 05.03.2018, passed in W.P.No.6841 of 2018, is quashed and set aside. W.A.No.1369 of 2018 is allowed along with the pending applications, if any, with no order as to costs."
11. In the present case, two petitioners have not bubbled one digit in hall ticket and one of the petitioners wrongly bubbled paper code, petitioners' falls under the category of "absence of bubbling" and "wrong bubbling". The Division Bench has held that evaluation in such cases is an electronic process undertaken through scanners, with no human intervention and no directions can be issued to TSPSC. In view of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the opinion that relief as sought for by petitioners cannot be granted, writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
14 JAK, J W.P.No.18877 of 2018
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
__________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 09.08.2024 KRR