Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rakesh Kumar Gurjar S/O Shri Ramphool ... vs Rajasthan High Court ... on 2 June, 2023
Bench: Augustine George Masih, Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
[2023:RJ-JP:12924-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8664/2023
Rakesh Kumar Gurjar S/o Shri Ramphool Gurjar, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Village Santokpura Berki Bihajar, Tehsil Virat Nagar,
District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar (Examination),
Rajasthan High Court Building, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Advocate Mr. Anil Kaushik, Registrar (Writ), Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench-in person HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA Judgment / Order 02/06/2023 Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that action of the respondent in not evaluating OMR sheet/performance of the petitioner on the ground of failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the instructions is highly arbitrary and capricious. It is contended that even though there were some mistake committed by the petitioner in not properly filling up the OMR sheet, not darkening the bubble indicating role number and date of birth, it was merely an irregularity. This inadvertent error ought to be condoned and OMR sheet of the petitioner ought to be evaluated. Exclusion of the petitioner from the process of selection on such (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:12924-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-8664/2023] ground is arbitrary, irrational and excessive. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Another Versus Pushpendra Kumar (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 120/2012, decided on 16.12.2020).
Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, on advance copy, however, brought to the notice of this Court, an order of Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur passed in the case of Vikram Kumar Versus High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6454/2023, decided on 12.05.2023) by which failure on the part of the candidate to properly fill up OMR sheet and darkening of bubble resulting in non-evaluation of OMR sheet has been held legal. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the aforesaid decision relies upon an earlier Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India & Others Versus Jagdish Chandra Jat (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12323/2020, decided on 19.08.2021). It is also brought to our notice by learned counsel for the respondent that SLP preferred against the order of the Division Bench in the case of Union of India & Others Versus Jagdish Chandra Jat (supra) was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 08.11.2021 in SLP No. 16738/2021. A copy of the said order is also produced for our perusal. He would further submit that subsequently, a Division Bench of this Court at Bench Jaipur, in the case of Neetu Choudhary & Another Versus Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and Another (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7797/2023 and batch of writ petitions), relying upon order (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:12924-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-8664/2023] passed in the case of Vikram Kumar Versus High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (supra), dismissed the writ petitions, wherein, common grievance on account of non-evaluation of OMR sheet due to failure on the part of the candidate to properly fill up OMR sheet was raised.
It is an admitted position on record that the petitioner failed to fill up the OMR sheet as per the instructions.
The instructions contained in the OMR sheet state as below:-
"1. The OMR answer sheet consist of two copies, the original copy and the duplicate copy below. Do not attempt to separate or displace them while answering. bl vks-,e-vkj- mRrj&i=d dh nks izfr;ka gS]a ewy izfr vkSj blds uhps f}rh; izfr gSA mUgsa vyx djus ;k gVkus dh dksf'k'k u djsaA
2. Use only blue/black ball point pen in this OMR answer sheet. OMR answer sheet shall not be evaluated in case of using pencil or ball point pen of any other color. bl vks-,e-vkj- mRrj&i=d esa dsoy uhys@dkys ckWy IokWbaV isu dk iz;ksx djsaA isafly ;k vU; fdlh jax ds ckWy IokWbaV isu dk iz;ksx djus ij vks-,e-vkj- mRrj&i=d dk ewY;kadu ugha fd;k tk,xkA
3. Do not make any stray marks on this OMR answer sheet. bl vks-,e-vkj- mRrj&i=d esa b/kj&m/kj dksbZ fu'kku u yxk,aA
4. Please ensure that your all particulars are correctly written. Do not fold the OMR Answer Sheet. d`i;k lqfuf'pr dj ysa fd vkids lHkh fooj.k lgh fy[ksa@Hkjs x;s gSAa bl vks-,e-vkj- mRrj i=d dks u eksMsa+A
5. While marking your answers darken the circle which is the correct best answer.
mRrj vafdr djus ds fy, tks lcls lgh mRrj gks] og xksyk Hkj nsaA
6. No negative marking.
dksbZ udkjkRed vadu ugha gSA
7. Answer to the question by darkening multiple circle/spreading of ink or darkening the circle by wrong method shall not be evaluated.
,d ls vf/kd xksys Hkjus@L;kgh QSykus ;k xyr rjhds ls xksyk Hkjus ij ml mRrj dk ewY;kadu ugha fd;k tk,xkA
8. Answer to the question by using whitener or eraser or using any other method to erase the darkened circle, shall not be evaluated.
Hkjs x;s xksys dks OgkbVuj ;k jcM+ ;k fdlh vU; rjhds lss feVkus ij ml mRrj dk ewY;kadu ugha fd;k tk,xkA** (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:12924-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-8664/2023] After publication of the result of the written test vide notice dated 01.05.2023, it was clearly stated, thus:-
"8. OMR Answer Sheets of the candidates who, while filling the bubbles of Roll Number, filled wrong bubble or filled multiple bubble or filled by wrong method or left any bubble unfilled or used whitener or spread the ink over bubble, have been excluded from the process of evaluation. List is published herewith.
9. OMR Answer Sheets of the candidates who, while filling the bubbles of Question Paper Booklet Series, filled multiple bubble or filled by wrong method or left the bubble unfilled or used whitener or spread the ink over bubble have been excluded from the process of evaluation. List is published herewith.
10. The question answered by filling multiple bubbles or used whitener to erase the earlier filled bubble or spread of ink over the bubble or answering the question by darkened the bubbles by wrong method, has not been evaluated."
The petitioner does not dispute that he failed to fill up the OMR sheet in the manner prescribed in the instructions and due to such failure, the OMR sheet of the petitioner was not evaluated.
Therefore, present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Union of India & Others Versus Jagdish Chandra Jat (supra), subsequent order passed in the case of Vikram Kumar Versus High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (supra) and order passed in the case of Neetu Choudhary & Another Versus Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Another (supra). In all these cases, view has been taken that if the OMR sheet is not filled up in accordance with the instructions, failure would be fatal and the grievance on (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:18 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:12924-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-8664/2023] account of non-evaluation of OMR sheet on such failure, is not legitimate under the law.
Reliance placed on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Another Versus Pushpendra Kumar (supra) is misplaced on facts. In that case the default committed by the candidate was condoned in the absence of there being any case made out before the Court that the instructions provided for non-evaluation in case of failure to fill up the OMR sheet in proper manner. That issue was neither raised nor decided. Further, in that case, the other reason for the Division Bench to condone the default was that later on, the candidate therein was finally selected and the only issue remained to be decided was whether his selection should relate back to the selection pursuant to earlier advertisement. Therefore, the aforesaid decision does not come to the aid of the petitioner.
Therefore, we are not inclined to take view different from what has been taken in the cases of Union of India & Others Versus Jagdish Chandra Jat (supra), Vikram Kumar Versus High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (supra), Neetu Choudhary & Another Versus Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Another (supra).
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ Mohita /18 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 05:47:18 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)