Allahabad High Court
Anwar Jahan vs State Of U.P.Thru.Secy.Basic ... on 17 November, 2020
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 21 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 20828 of 2020 Petitioner :- Anwar Jahan Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Secy.Basic Education Lko. & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshmana Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 and Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.
The present writ petition has been preferred for directing the respondents to check the O.M.R. Answer Sheet ATR-19 of Question Booklet Series D of the petitioner for the selection on the post of Assistant Teacher.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner by mistake did not mention the question booklet series D in the O.M.R. Answer Sheet due to which, when the result was declared on 12.05.2020, the result of the petitioner has been shown invalid.
It is further contended that the petitioner by mistake had forgotten to mention the question booklet series on the O.M.R. Answer Sheet for which, the invigilator is also responsible. It is a duty of the invigilator that while signing the O.M.R. Answer Sheet, he should have seen whether the candidate appearing in the examination has filled the requisite information on the O.M.R. Answer Sheet or not. The petitioner, however, failed to point out any provision fastening any such responsibility on the invigilator. Merely signing on the O.M.R. answer sheet does not lead to any such inference.
On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that the whole exercise is to be done through online process and there is no scope of checking the copy of any individual manually. Further, the selection has been concluded and pursuant thereto the appointments have been made except the posts pertaining to the matters pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The attention has also been drawn to the clause 2 of O.M.R. Answer Sheet enclosed as annexure no. 4 to the writ petition, wherein it has specifically been provided that the candidate should indicate the question booklet series on the O.M.R. Answer Sheet, otherwise, the copy will not be evaluated and the candidate will be solely responsible for it.
It has further been contended that the signature of the invigilator on the O.M.R. Answer Sheet is only for the purpose of identifying the candidate who is appearing in the examination as per the Admit Card.
After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is found that it is an undisputed case that the petitioner had missed to fill the question booklet series in the O.M.R. Answer Sheet and as per the clause 2 of the O.M.R. Answer Sheet. The Clause 2 of the Important Instructions is being reproduced hereunder:-
? The candidate should indicate his Registration No., Roll No., Question Booklet Series at the space provided on the OMR Answer Sheet , otherwise the Answer Sheet will not be evaluated and the candidate will be solely responsible for it.?
The perusal of the aforesaid, clearly reveals that if the candidate has not filled the required information at the space provided on the O.M.R. Answer Sheet including the question booklet series, the Answer Sheet will not be evaluated and for which, the candidate will be solely responsible. The selection on the posts of Assistant Teachers has already been concluded.
As per the observation made hereinabove, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 17.11.2020 Ashish