Allahabad High Court
Dipa vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 23 May, 2022
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2944 of 2022 Petitioner :- Dipa Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Education(Shiksha Anubhag 02), Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 4 & 5 as well as Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel has accepted notices on behalf of respondent No. 3.
2. It has been submitted that applicant appeared in the TET Examination held on 23.01.2022 where in the OMR answer-sheet she did not blacken/darken the circles of the booklet series and therefore he OMR answer-sheet is not evaluated.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that it was only a bona fide mistake and consequently for redressal of her grievances, petitioner preferred this writ petition with the prayer that respondents may be directed to evaluate the OMR answer-sheet of the petitioner of U.P. TET Examination, 2021 held on 23.01.2022 and declare her result in the interest of justice.
4. Learned counsel for respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner and submitted that law in this regard has been settled by various judgments of this Court which have subsequently been upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court.
5. This Court in the case of Rohit Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, passed in Writ -C No. 28339 of 2019, in the similar circumstances has rejected the claim of the petitioner where the OMR Answer sheet was not correctly filled relying upon the previous Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Km. Richa Pandey Vs. Examination Regulatory Authority and Anr. passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 117 of 2014 which is as under:-
"On the other hand, learned Standing counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Km. Richa Pandey Vs. Examination Regulatory Authority and anr passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 117 of 2014 to contend that once the OMR sheet are provided to the candidates it is the duty of the candidates to fill in the said OMR sheet correctly and it would not be possible and feasible for the examiners to individually look into all the OMR sheets to see whether they have filled in correctly or not. It is contended that even if the petitioner may have filled in the examination form correctly yet once the OMR sheet was not correctly filled or the relevant column blackened, as such non blacking of the relevant column is a sufficient ground to not declare the result of the petitioner.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and having perused the records what is apparent is that admittedly the petitioner did not blacken the relevant column pertaining to language. This has resulted in the result of the petitioner not being declared by the respondents on the ground of "Invalid Language". Obviously, even if the petitioner might have filled in his examination form correctly yet it was his duty to fill in the OMR sheet correctly and in case the OMR sheet was not filled in/blackened correctly it was not for the examiner to have corrected the same. In this regard, the Court may refer to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Km. Richa Pandey (supra) wherein it has been held as under:-
"In the present case we find that the petitioner despite clear instructions did not fill up the column of language for evaluation of answer sheets by computer.
We do not find that the petitioner has taken any ground that all the series of answers in three languages were same and thus computer could have evaluated answers even if option of language was not given by the candidate.
The OMR sheets are provided to the candidates to speed up evaluation through help of computer. In case we accept the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the language in which the petitioner had written essay could be checked up by the examiner before feeding answer book into computer, the entire process of expediting the results will be lost. Where OMR sheets are to be examined with aid of the computer, it is not advisable and practical to direct that each OMR sheet should be checked by the examiners and the columns, which have not been filled up may be filled up by the examiner himself with the aid of the language used by the candidates for writing essay. We are informed by Standing Counsel that about seven lacs candidates had appeared in the test.
With such large number of candidates appearing in TET Examination 2013 it would not have been possible nor it was feasible for examiners to look into the answer sheets individually before feeding them into computer for correcting any mistakes.
We agree with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge that where the applicant is not capable of correctly filling up the form, she is not entitled to any discretionary relief from the Court.
The special appeal is dismissed."
6. Reliance has also been placed in the case of Special Appeal No. 4 of 2014 in the case of Mamta Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others where the Division Bench of this Court relied upon another Division Bench decision passed in Special Appeal No. 90 of 2018 (Jai Karan Singh and 52 Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Ors.) decided on 25.04.2018 and dismissed the special appeal relevant portion as under:-
"In this view of the matter a Division Bench decision in Special Appeal no. 90 of 2018(Jai Karan Singh and 52 Ors. Vs State of U.P., and 4 Ors.) decided on 25.4.2018 clearly observed as under:-
"The error committed by the candidates cannot be said to be minor in nature. It is the registered Number, Roll Number that determines the identity of the candidates. The candidates who appeared in the examination were mature students and were to be appointed as Assistant Teachers in institution. They should have read the instructions that was issued time and again and should have correctly filled the entries relating to Roll Number, Registration Number, question booklet series and Language attempted. The entries were, however inaccurately filled as a result of which the scanner has not been able to process the result."
After making the above observation, the Division Bench held that in view of such an error committed by the candidate the learned Single Judge is justified in dismissing the writ petition.
The same is the situation in the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that equal responsibility has been cast upon the invigilator to check if all such columns specially that of language are duly filled up by the candidates before accepting the OMR sheets.
This is clear from the printed note on the OMR sheets above the signatures of the invigilator certifying that he has checked the candidate's name, roll number, OMR sheet, question booklet series and attempted language.
The submission is that had the invigilator discharged his duty properly, he could have found that petitioner has not filled up a particular column and the same could have been rectified by the appellant on being pointing out before submission of the OMR sheet.
The argument is too far fetched. Any negligence or improper discharge of duty by the invigilator can not wipe off the effect of the mistake committed by the appellant herself.
Thus, in view of the above decision which has also been referred to by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any justification to entertain this appeal.
The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
The OMR sheet in original produced before the Court is returned to the counsel."
7. It has further been submitted that the judgment passed in Special Appeal No. 4 of 2019 was also assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court where Hon'ble the Supreme Court has upheld the judgment passed by Division Bench and did not say any negligence in favour of the petitioner.
8. The facts in issue of the present case are similar to those in the abovenoted cases and where due to negligence of the candidate the question series has not been darken/blacken the booklet series in her answer-sheet which does not deserve to be evaluated, condoning the mistake
9. The aforesaid judgments clearly indicate that there is any negligence by the applicant in blackening the circle of booklet series which mistake has been committed by the petitioner herself and no benefit of the same can be given as considered in various judicial opinions referred to hereinabove and consequently this Court cannot show any indulgence in the same circumstances in the case of petitioner and accordingly in light of the above, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 23.5.2022/Ravi/