Jharkhand High Court
Astik Chandra Mondal vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 17 August, 2020
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.3909 of 2015
-----
1. Astik Chandra Mondal
2. Asis Kumar Das
3. Dinesh Mahato
4. Anil Kumar Sah
5. Ramdas Chakraborty
6. Manik Chandra Roy
7. Manik Chandra Rawani
8. Mithu Khan
9. Kumari Sarala Mahato
10. Akhtar Ansari .......... Petitioners.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
2. Jharkhand Academic Council through its Chairman, Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, Ranchi.
3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, Ranchi.
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Academic Council, Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, Ranchi.
5. Special Work Officer-cum-Public Information Officer, J.A.C., Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
For the State : A.C. to S.R. S.C.II
For the JAC : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate
-----
Order No.06 Date: 17.08.2020
1. This case is taken up through video conferencing.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to declare the result of the petitioners for Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) Examination, 2012 conducted by the respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council (JAC), Ranchi on 26.4.2013.
3. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi (in short 'JAC') published Advertisement No.95 of 2012 on 19.11.2012 inviting applications from suitable persons for Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted for future appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers/Urdu Assistant Teachers in the primary schools of the State of Jharkhand and the date of examination was fixed on 26.04.2013. Subsequent to the said advertisement, the petitioners -2- having requisite qualifications submitted their applications and in pursuance thereof they were issued their respective admit cards. The petitioners appeared in the said examination and the result was published on 28.05.2013. However, the result of the petitioners was not published due to some defects found in their respective OMR answer sheets. Some of the petitioners preferred representations before the Chairman, JAC for declaring their result after verifying their roll number as well as other particulars properly, but nothing was done. Hence the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been made to suffer due to some minor mistakes found in their respective OMR answer sheets. The result of the petitioners was required to be published on merit, however, the respondent-JAC rejected their OMR answer sheets on mere technical ground, due to which the petitioners have suffered irreparable loss and injuries. The action of the respondent-JAC in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners without declaring their results on merit is absolutely arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The respondent-JAC was bound to declare the result of the petitioners ignoring the minor mistakes committed by them in darkening the circles of OMR answer sheets relating to roll number/ Question Booklet Series/language code number whereas they have mentioned correct digital number in the respective boxes. It is further submitted that the petitioners cannot be made to suffer due to some minor mistakes when all other particulars were properly filled by them, which were duly verified by the invigilator to be correct.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-JAC submits that the concerned TET examination was conducted using OMR answer sheet. The instructions were given on the top of the OMR answer sheet for the candidates to read the instructions carefully and to darken the circle accordingly with due care. All the petitioners have committed mistakes while filling the OMR answer sheets as well as darkening the appropriate circles in OMR answer sheets and since the evaluation of the OMR answer sheet was done -3- through computerized system, the OMR answer sheets of the petitioners were rejected by the system due to wrong filling of the data or improper darkening of the circles. Thus, the candidatures of the petitioners were cancelled. It is submitted that Clause 7 of the Advertisement explicitly provided that in case of error found in the information as well as incomplete or wrong information would lead to rejection of the candidature even in later stage while making document verification even if the candidate has qualified the examination.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-JAC puts reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in L.P.A. No.105 of 2018 (Jharkhand Academic Council & Another Vs. Vandana Kumari & Others).
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners herein have sought direction upon the respondent-JAC to publish their result for TET Examination, 2012. The stand of the respondent-JAC is that the petitioners committed mistakes in filling the OMR answer sheets and due to the wrong/non-filling of the required data, the system rejected their OMR answer sheets and thus the candidatures of the petitioners were cancelled.
8. Before coming to the merit of the case of the parties, I would like to refer the judgment rendered in the case of Bhanu Priya Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in 2018 (3) JLJR 691, wherein identical matter came up for consideration before this Court and while rejecting the contention of the petitioner-candidate, it was held as under:-
"6. It is worth to mention that in a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5803 of 2016 [Mishra Somesh Kumar Shiv Kumar v. 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 -4- 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:-
"........... 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.-5-
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. 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. I have also perused the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Jharkhand Academic Council (Supra.) wherein also the candidate had committed mistake in filling the OMR sheet. The learned Division Bench after having taken note of condition no.8 whereby it was informed to the candidates that their candidatures would be cancelled if any entry was found/false/incomplete/wrong, allowed the appeal of the JAC and confirmed the decision of JAC rejecting the candidature of the candidate. It was held inter alia that the candidate had to do some homework before going to the examination hall and the court is not supposed to rectify the errors committed by them especially in competitive examinations. For the slightest error, the candidate has to suffer. In competitive examinations, not only the grip on the subject of a candidate is evaluated but the accuracy of the candidates in filling up OMR sheets also has a bearing upon their results. If the particular columns are not properly filled up, then the candidate has to suffer.
10. Coming back to the facts of the present case. Admittedly, the petitioners have committed mistakes while filing the OMR sheet. In -6- the counter affidavit, the respondent-JAC has stated that the petitioners have committed following mistakes in filling their OMR answer sheets:-
Petitioner Mistake
Petitioner no.1 Not darkened the circle of booklet series
Petitioner no.2 Not darkened the roll number in the circle provided in
the OMR sheet
Petitioner no.3 Darkened multiple circles in the section of roll number
Petitioner no.4 Not darkened the circle of the language code.
Petitioner no.5 Not darkened the circle on the booklet series.
Petitioner no.6 Not endorsed any document which will disclose his roll
number.
Petitioner no.7 Wrongly darkened the circles of roll number.
Petitioner no.8 Wrongly darkened the circle of Booklet Series.
Petitioner no.9 Left two Columns i.e. post applied for and subject as
blank.
Petitioner no.10 Left subject column as blank.
11. It would also be appropriate to quote two statements in form of certificates which were printed on the OMR answer sheet itself and the candidates were required to put their respective signatures on the same. The content of the said statements reads as under:
"This is to certify that I have made entries to all the fields above and if found empty or improper, wrong entries, my answer sheet will be rejected.
This is to certify that I have verified all the entries and found to be correct."
12. Thus, the petitioners were informed in clear and explicit term that in case of wrong, empty or improper entries, their answer sheet would be liable for rejection. Now, the petitioners are claiming that the mistakes committed by them were minor in nature and as such their answer sheets were required to be examined on merit, however, the same were rejected on technical ground. I do not find any substance in the said argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in view of the ratio laid down in the cases cited hereinabove.
13. Otherwise also, the petitioners want to be teachers and such a careless approach was not expected from them. By not following -7- the instructions given to them while appearing in the examination would obviously mean that they were too careless in properly reading and following the instructions. Such careless candidates cannot be expected to be good teachers.
14. In view of the aforesaid legal and factual position, I do not find any merit in the prayer made by the petitioners so as to make any interference under extraordinary writ jurisdiction which is otherwise plenary in nature.
15. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/