Allahabad High Court
Soni Prajapati vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 30 July, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 2027
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4653 of 2020 Petitioner :- Soni Prajapati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhu Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for a mandamus commanding the Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj to evaluate the OMR sheet of the petitioner pertaining to the recruitment on the post of Assistant Teachers (Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2019).
The case of the petitioner is that she appeared in written examination conducted by the Examination Regulatory Authority, Prayagraj for recruitment to the post of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools. The examination was held on basis of objective type questions on OMR sheet. There were four question booklet series i.e. A, B, C and D having 150 questions each. All series had identical questions but serial numbers were different. The result was declared on 12.5.2020, where in it was shown that the petitioner had mentioned invalid series on the OMR sheet, consequently, the OMR sheet was not evaluated.
The case of the petitioner is that she correctly filled the question booklet series on the OMR sheet. It is also her case that even if there was some mistake, it was purely a human error and should be ignored, inasmuch as the respondents have with them the relevant data from which it could be ascertained that which candidate was allotted which question booklet series.
Having regard to the above submissions, this Court by order dated 10.7.2020, directed the respondents to produce the original OMR sheet of the petitioner before this Court.
In compliance of the said direction, the original OMR sheet has been produced before this Court and from where it transpires that the petitioner had darkened the circle corresponding to Question Booklet Series 'B' in the column meant for specifying the same. Subsequently, an attempt was made to erase the same and to darken circle corresponding to Question Booklet Series 'A'.
Learned standing counsel points out that the candidates were informed in advance that in case of overwriting, cutting or use of whitener on the OMR sheet, the OMR sheet will not be evaluated, as the evaluation was to be made by electronic scanning device. Instruction no.10 is also to the same effect which also specifically stipulates that in case of a mistake in filling Roll number, Registration number or Booklet Series number, the candidate himself shall be responsible for the same. Learned standing counsel further submitted that even in the Government Order dated 1.12.2018, on basis of which the recruitment was held, it was specifically provided under Paragraph 7 (3) and (4) that any mistake in filling the question booklet series, registration number, roll number or in failing to provide such information, no representation at a later stage would be entertained. Such answer sheets shall not be evaluated. It is urged that consequently, the grievance now raised by the petitioner could not be considered.
The original OMR sheet, which has been produced before this Court, has been shown to learned counsel for the petitioner. He has satisfied himself that the petitioner had initially darkened the circle meant for booklet series 'B'. Thereafter, an attempt was made to erase the same but the petitioner could not succeed in erasing it completely, as visible to the naked eyes. The petitioner thereafter darkened circle 'A'. Instructions no.6 and 10 of the admit card stipulated that:-
Þ6- vkids vks0,e0vkj0 mRrj i=d dh tkWp bysDVªkfud LdSfuax lalk/ku ls dh tk;sxh vr% vks0,e0vkj0 (OMR) 'khV esa vksojjkbfVax@dfVax djus ij@ ,d ls vf/kd ?ksjs dks dkyk djus ij@ fdlh ?ksjs dks iwjk dkyk u djus ij@ ?ksjs ij dksbZ vU; fu'kku cukus ij@lQsnk yxkus ij vks0,e0vkj0 (OMR) 'khV dk ewY;kadu ugha gksxkß Þ10- vH;FkhZ vfuok;Z :i ls vks0,e0vkj0 (OMR) 'khV fu/kkZfjr LFkku ij vuqdzekad] jftLVsª'ku ua0- iz'u iqfLrdk lhjht dks fy[ksa vkSj lEcfU/kr ?ksjs @xksys dks dkyk djs] vU;Fkk vks0,e0vkj0 (OMR) mRrj i=d dk ewY;kadu ugha gksxk ftldk iw.kZ mRrjnkf;Ro vH;FkhZ dk gksxkA lEcfU/kr vH;FkhZ vius lkFk Jqfrys[kd yk ldrs gSaA ftldh 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk gkbZLdwy rd gks ftldk 'kiFki= izek.k i= lkFk yk;sAÞ"
Paragraph 7 (3) and (4) of the Government Order dated 1.12.2018 containing the entire scheme on basis of which the examination was held, reads as follows:-
Þ7 ¼3½- vH;FkhZ }kjk ijh{kk ds le; fuxZr mRrj i=d ¼vks0,e0vkj0 'khV½ esa xyr lwpuk vafdr djus] xyr vuqdzekad Hkjus] xyr jftLVªs'ku la0 Hkjus ,oa iz'u iqfLrdk lhjht ds xksys dks dkyk u djus ij mldk ewY;kadu ugha fd;k tk;sxk ,oa bl lacU/k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj ds izR;kosnu fopkj.kh; ugha gksxasA blds fy, vko';d gS fd vH;FkhZ ijh{kk ds le; iz'u iqfLrdk esa fn;s x;s egRoiw.kZ funsZ'kksa dk vuqlj.k djsaA ¼4½- vH;FkhZ dks ijh{kk ds le; fuxZr mRrj i=d ¼vks0,e0vkj0 'khV½ esa iz'u iqfLrdk lhjht ds dkWye esa dkys fd;s x;s xksys ds vk/kkj ij gh vH;FkhZ ds mRrj i=d ¼vks0,e0vkj0 'khV½ dk ewY;kadu fd;k tk;sxkA ijh{kk ds mijkUr iz'u iqfLrdk lhjht ds xyr vadu ls lEcfU/kr izR;kosnu fopkj.kh; ugha gksxasA blds fy, vko';d gS fd vH;FkhZ ijh{kk ds le; miyC/k djk;h x;h iz'u iqfLrdk esa fn;s x;s egRoiw.kZ funsZ'kksa dks vuqlj.k djsaAÞ It is clear that there was initially a wrong mention of the booklet series on the OMR sheet, then an attempt to erase the same was made, followed by darkening the circle corresponding to another series. These acts are strictly prohibited under the Examination Scheme. As per Paragraph 7 (3) and (4), any representation by a candidate in respect of mentioning of the incorrect question booklet series on the OMR sheet was not to be entertained after the examination is over. In the instant case, not only the examination is over, even the result had been declared and after which, the petitioner approached this Court.
The instructions provided to the candidates were clear and specific. Even if there was a human error, but since the examination was taken on OMR sheet and the information regarding Question Booklet Series was to be provided by darkening the corresponding circle on the OMR sheet and having regard to the fact that evaluation of answer sheet was to be done by electronic scanning device, which was duly communicated to the candidates in advance, the grievance now raised could not be considered. There would be large number of other candidates having same or similar grievances, in which also same relief would have to be granted thereby derailing the entire process. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find it a fit case to interfere at this stage in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
The original OMR sheet has been returned to Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J) Order Date :- 30.7.2020 SL