Jharkhand High Court
Bhanu Priya vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 March, 2018
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 6711 of 2017
Bhanu Priya ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy,
Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Director, Primary Education, Department of School Education and
Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Jharkhand Academic Council, through its Secretary, Ranchi
5. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi ..... Respondents
-----
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Kaustav Roy, A.C to Sr. S.C-III
For the JAC: Ms. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
-----
03/12.03.2018 The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the
respondents to declare the petitioner as a successful candidate in the JTET (PT), 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said examination'), conducted by the Jharkhand Academic Council (in short JAC), as she has got 78 marks, which is higher than that of the last successful candidate.
2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the JAC published Advertisement No. 47/2016 dated 31.08.2016 for conducting the said examination and thereby inviting applications from the candidates who were interested and eligible for the same. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied and appeared in the said examination held on 20.11.2016. The respondent-JAC declared the result of the said examination, however, the name of the petitioner did not find place in the list of the successful candidates. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the respondent-JAC for showing her OMR sheet. Vide letter dated 17.06.2017, she was allowed to inspect her OMR sheet on 04.07.2017. On inspection of the OMR Sheet, it was found that due to inadvertence, the petitioner had not filled up the subject column, though she had solved the questions of Maths and Science subjects scoring 27 marks. The following marks were obtained by the petitioner in the said examination: 2
Sl. No. Subject Marks
obtained
01 Hindi 8
02 English 5
03 ChildDevelopment& 15
Pedagogy
04 Maths & Science 27
05 Nagpuri 26
Total 81
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the total marks obtained by the petitioner is 81 whereas the last selected candidate of the petitioner's category i.e. B.C category for the Ranchi District has got 78 marks. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioner could not be included in the list of the successful candidates due to non-addition of the marks of Maths and Science subjects in the total marks, though she scored 27 marks in the said subjects. It is also submitted that the mistake of non-shadowing the subject column is a human error, which can be rectified and the petitioner may be declared as a successful in the said examination after adding the marks of Maths and Science subjects.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-JAC, submits that the OMR sheets of the candidates were to be evaluated through the OMR scanning machine and as such in the admit cards itself, it was instructed that the incomplete/incorrect filling or shadowing of the bubbles on the OMR sheets will be the sole responsibility of the candidates. It is further submitted that the petitioner appeared in the said examination, but in her OMR sheet, she had not filled up or shadowed the Column No.10 i.e. Subject Column and due to the said reason, upon computerized checking of her OMR sheet, she got total 54 marks for the shadowed answers. It is also submitted that at every stage of the examination and also in the OMR sheet, it had been clarified to the candidates that the OMR sheet will be checked through computerised system and not manually and therefore the candidates have to shadow their choices properly. In case of improper shadowing or leaving the column blank, the same will not be read by the OMR scanning machine. Thus, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
3
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant documents available on record, it appears that the marks obtained by the petitioner in Maths and Science subjects could not be added in her total marks, as she had not filled up/shadowed Column No.10 i.e. the Subject Column in her OMR sheet. The petitioner's OMR sheet was checked through the OMR scanning machine and as such the marks obtained by her in Maths and Science subjects could not be computed/read by the computer. Even in paragraph 15 of the writ petition, the petitioner herself has admitted that she did not shadow Column No.10 i.e. the Subject Column.
6. It is worth to mention that in a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5803 of 2016 [Mishra Somesh Kumar Shiv Kumar Vs. 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 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:- 4
"........... 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, 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
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.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated 12.03.2018 Satish/A.F.R