Allahabad High Court
Amar Bahadur And 25 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 19 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 1369
Author: Anjani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?[RESERVED] Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4321 of 2020 Petitioner :- Amar Bahadur And 25 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey,Radha Kant Ojha (Senior Adv),Shivendu Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. connected with Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4242 of 2020 Petitioner :- Mohd. Mautasim Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Man Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. connected with Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4246 of 2020 Petitioner :- Om Prakash Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Man Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. connected with Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4248 of 2020 Petitioner :- Neelam Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendu Ojha,Radha Kant Ojha (Senior Adv) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
These four writ petitions relate to the selection process under way for filling 69000 posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary and Junior High Schools in the State of UP which operate under the Board of Basic Eduction, UP., Allahabad.
I have heard counsel appearing for the petitioners, namely, Shri Man Bahadur Singh, Shri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate and Shri Devendra Tripathi.
In writ petition No. 4242 of 2020 it is alleged that petitioners 1, 2 and 3 did not fill in the relevant column in the on-line form to indicate that they are working as Shiksha Mitras, which is alleged to carry a weightage of 25 marks.
Additionally in paragraph 24 of the petition, it has been stated that the petitioner No. 3 also committed another mistake. The maximum marks in the graduation examination have wrongly entered as 1200 in place of 2200 while the marks obtained have wrongly been entered as 973 in place of 1273. Petitioner No. 4 has entered her total marks in graduation examination as 164 in place of 1664.
In writ petition No. 4246 of 2020, the petitioners have wrongly filled their domicile in on-line form. They stated the residents of UP but in the form they have indication that they are not domiciled in UP.
It appears that the selection process started in December 2018 when on-line application forms were invited and were submitted. Subsequently written examinations were held on the basis of the same the shortlisted candidates required to complete their on-line forms for the purposes of their counselling / interviews.
In the aforenoted two petitions it is not the case of the petitioners that they have qualified in the written examinations. It is in this context that the guidelines issued for filling up forms on-line, which provide that an entry once made therein will not be permitted to be corrected, has been impugned in these two writ petitions.
A prayer has also been made the respondents be directed to permit the petitioners to correct their on-line forms.
In writ petition No. 4321 of 2020 it has been categorically stated that all the 26 petitioners therein have qualified in the written exams. While filling up the reminder of their forms on-line, they noticed that mistakes had been made while filling up the marks in various qualifying examinations. Some of the petitioners are stated to have filled marks on the higher side while some of the others filled marks on the lower side. However specific details in this regard are not to be found in the writ petition.
Shri R.K. Ojha who appears for the petitioners has submitted that the forms having been filled on-line in rural areas, where the facility of Internet is not very strong and this resulted in the errors which are human errors and not mala fide.
In writ petition No. 4248 of 2020, the grievance of the petitioner is that while filling up the OMR sheets the correct answer was not indicated by black circles and in fact at some places, the petitioners have put a tick mark on the correct answer while the other places the correct answer has been indicated by black circles as was mandatorily required to be done. In this context the relief claimed in the petition is quoted below:-
"(a) A Writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent- Authority to condone the mistake of the Petitioner and further to permit the Petitioner to blacken column of Booklet Series "a" and also copy of the Petitioner be checked.
(b) A writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent- Authorities to re-evaluate answer key by providing marks against the questions dully attempted by the Petitioner and if in re-evaluation and checking answers of the Petitioner were found correct then marks be awarded to the Petitioner.
(c) A writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent-Authorities to pass appropriate order for making appointment of the Petitioner and also provide all other consequential benefits as admissible under law in favour of the Petitioner."
Counsel appearing for the petitioners in these petitions have cited various case law, namely, the order dated 04.06.2020 passed in Writ A No. 4088 of 2020 wherein the petitioners had filled the wrong roll number of her graduation examination. This error was found to be the human error and since the petitioner had qualified in the written examination and was required to face an interview before the Selection Committee, it was left open to the Selection Committee to examine and pass appropriate order on the pleas for correction of the roll number in the application form. This consideration was directed to be made at the time of counselling.
Another judgment relied upon is by the Single Judge of this Court in a Writ A No. 18471 of 2018 and connected matters, wherein, it has been held that the candidates should be afforded an opportunity of correcting human errors mistakes made while filling up on-line forms. However this judgement does not mention specifically as to what was the errors or mistakes which were permitted to be corrected.
The next judgment relied upon is by a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Staff Selection Commission vs. Sarla and Others. This judgement dismissed a letters patent appeal and affirmed the judgment passed by the Single Judge. The Single Judge had held that if an incorrect entry is made due to a human error and since there exists no provision on the website for correction in the on-line application form, such a mistake is noticed subsequently, the candidates should not be made to suffer for the same.
The last judgment cited has been rendered in Writ Petition No. 4070 of 2020 decided on 30.05.2020. This is an exhaustive judgment and considers a large number of decisions including decisions by Division Benches. The Court has dealt with various mistakes that had been made by the petitioners in the petition aforesaid, and goes on to hold that errors committed by the candidates which cannot be said to be human errors cannot be condoned and their correction is not permissible.
I have considered the submissions made by the petitioner and perused the records as also judgments cited.
I consider to appropriate to deal with the writ petition No. 4321 of 2020 first.
In this case, all the petitioners are stated to have qualified on the basis of the written examination. They have made mistakes while filling up their marks obtained by them in various qualifying examinations. Some, as noticed above, they filled lower marks while other have filled higher marks than actually obtained. The petitioners in this petition, in my opinion would be governed by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 4088 of 2020 which reads as follows:-
"From perusal of the same, it is clear that after the petitioner was found selected, she has to face the aforesaid Selection Committee. I am of the opinion that for the mistake, which was committed by the petitioner, she should place the aforesaid facts before the aforesaid Selection Committee at the time of councelling. If petitioner will place the aforesaid facts before the Selection Committee constituted under Rule 16 of the Rules 1981, the Selection Committee will look into the same sympathetically and pass appropriate orders for the correction of roll number in the application form of the petitioner."
This petition, therefore, is liable to be allowed on the same reasoning as extracted above.
Insofar as the Writ Petition No. 4248 of 2020 is concerned, the petitioners want permission for correction in the booklet containing answers given by her during written examination. It appears that the petitioner has put tick marks at some places against the correct answer and wants permission to replace them by a black circle as was required to be done while answering the question on the OMR sheet.
In my considered opinion and since the petitioner has, admittedly, at some places, marked the answer by a black circle as was required and at other place put a tick mark, this is not the human error. There is one set pattern for filling up the answers in the OMR sheet which are then optically scanned and marks awarded without any human inference. The instructions were absolutely categorically as to manner in which the OMR sheets were required to be filled which categorical instructions have not admittedly not been followed by the petitioners. Under the circumstances, no relief is liable to be granted to the petitioners in these petitions, because a person who is unable to follow written instructions, as to manner in which the questions are to be answered and marked in an OMR sheet, is not fit for appointed as an Assistant Teacher. The writ petition, is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
Insofar as the writ petition Nos. 4242 of 2020 and 4226 of 2020 are concerned, as noticed above, it is not claimed in these writ petitions that the petitioners have qualified in the written examination. Allowing these writ petitions merely on the ground that the mistake made by filling their on-line forms is an human error and, therefore, will liable to be corrected necessarily effect all the results that had already been declared. In this connection it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Division Bench rendered in Ram Manohar Yadav vs. State of UP and Others in Special Appeal No. 834 of 2013 which has been referred to in the judgment in Writ Petition A No. 4070 of 2020 and is quoted as follows:-
"In the judgment of the Division Bench in Ram Manohar Yadav (supra) it was observed that where an applicant has shown his incompetence or negligence in not not even correctly filling up a simple on line application form for employment, interference of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was not warranted.
However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench in Puspraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (Special Appeal-75 of 2013). That is a case where the appellant had wrongly described himself as a female candidate. On these facts, the Division Bench accepted the contention that human error had caused an incorrect on line entry, since there was no reason for the appellant to make such a declaration and that he did not stand to gain anything by making such an incorrect entry.
In the present case, the appellant claimed the benefit of Freedom Fighters category. The contention that this was as a result of an error committed by the Computer Operator cannot simply be accepted for the reason that the appellant would necessarily be responsible for any statement which he made on line. If the Courts were to accept such a plea of the appellant, that would result in a situation where the appellant would get the benefit of a wrong category if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if noticed, the appellant could always turn around and claim that this was as a result of human error. Each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly. No fault can, therefore, be found in rejecting the application for correction when the candidate himself has failed to make a proper disclosure or where, as in the present case, the application is submitted under a wrong category. Interference of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is clearly not warranted in such matters as it creates grave uncertainty since the selection process cannot be finally completed. Moreover, in the present case, the appointment was of a contractual nature for a period of eleven months. Hence, considering the matter from any perspective, the learned Single Judge was not in error in dismissing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed."
The writ petitions are to be governed by the ratio in Ram Manohar Yadav are therefore, liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly and in view of what has been stated above, these two writ petition Nos. 4222 of 2020, 4242 of 2020 and 4248 of 2020 are hereby dismissed.
Writ Petition No. 4321 of 2020 is disposed of with the observation that the petitioners may place the relevant facts before the Selection Committee at the time of counselling and the Selection Committee will look into the same and pass appropriate orders as regards the correction prayed for by the petitioners therein.
Order Date :- 19.6.2020 Priyanka