Punjab-Haryana High Court
Reman Kumari vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission on 20 May, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 P AND H 973
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA-463-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.05.2021
REMAN KUMARI ...APPELLANT
Versus
HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, BAYS NO.67-70,
SECTOR 20, PANCHKULA, HARYANA
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANT PARKASH
Present : Mr. Manoj Makkar, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, DAG, Haryana.
****
SANT PARKASH, J.
(The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in virtual court) The appellant has filed the present appeal for setting aside the judgment dated 05.04.2021 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that vide advertisement bearing No.6/2006 published by the office of respondent i.e. Haryana Staff Selection Commission in the year 2006, applications were invited for filling up of 816 posts of Art & Craft Teachers. But later on, the selection made pursuance to the above stated advertisement was set aside by the High Court and even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court giving the liberty to the respondent-State to make the selection afresh. As per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, respondent issued an examination notice dated 28.12.2020. The appellant had applied for category No.22 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 06-06-2021 10:00:30 ::: LPA No.463-2021 (O&M) --2--
under BCA category and was issued an Admit Card for the examination to be held on 31.01.2021 in pursuance of aforesaid examination notice dated 28.12.2020. Accordingly, the appellant appeared in the written examination on 31.01.2021. The result thereof was declared on 23.02.2021. As per schedule there was 200 marks for the 100 multiple choice questions and as per the result declared by the respondent, the last eligible candidate under BCA category for the interview was having 96 marks for 48 questions as each question was of two marks. After conducting the written examination, the respondent uploaded the answer key of the written examination to verify the marks obtained by the candidates and to submit objection, if any. On verification of the answer key, the petitioner found 54 questions correct and as such the petitioner secured 108 marks for the 54 questions but the name of the petitioner was not found in the result. Since, appellant was more meritorious than the last short-listed candidate, she moved representation before the respondent. Thereafter, the appellant came to know that her candidature has been cancelled because she has darkened two circles for one question in OMR sheet in question No.49 and 91. Being aggrieved, appellant-petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No.6952 of 2021, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner eligible for the post of Art & Craft Teacher under BCA category.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge is based on surmises and conjecture and as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 06-06-2021 10:00:30 ::: LPA No.463-2021 (O&M) --3--
the findings of the ld. Single Judge that the original OMR Answer-sheet of the petitioner is found to have been scratched instead of specific instructions issued by the respondent-Commission cautioning the candidates appearing in the said written examination that in case their OMR answer-sheets were found to be smudged, damaged or scratched by using eraser, nail, blade, white fluid/whitener etc., the same would be liable to be rejected/cancelled, are totally erroneous as in the case of similarly situated candidate whose candidature has been cancelled by the respondent commission due to reason that there was some smudging/erasing in the OMR mark sheet in answers, the candidate was permitted to participate in the process of scrutiny of documents subject to decision of the writ petition. Moreover, as per original OMR answer sheet, there is scratching at option 'A' qua question No.49 and at option 'C' pertaining to question No.91, even thereafter, the petitioner has correct 52 questions and secured 104 marks and if the question No.49 and 91 deemed to be cancelled even then the petitioner is having more marks than the last eligible candidate under BCA category as the last eligible candidate was having only 96 marks for 48 questions.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Before adverting to the matter in hand, it is noted that Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) is an appeal by the petitioner against the decision of a Single Judge to another Bench of the same Court. It is an intra-court appeal in High Court. The scope of the LPA is limited to the extent whether the judgment under appeal is permissible in law and is in consonance with the settled canons of law. Reference in this regard 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 06-06-2021 10:00:30 ::: LPA No.463-2021 (O&M) --4--
can gainfully be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Management of Narendra and Company Vs Workmen: 216(3) SCC 340, wherein it has been held that unless the Appellate Bench reaches to a conclusion that the finding of the learned Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same and there should be no interference with the order passed by the learned Single Judge merely because another view or a better view is possible.
The learned Single Judge, while personally looking into the OMR answer sheet of the appellant, found that it has been scratched in violation of the instructions (AnnexureP-2), cautioning the candidates appearing in the said written examination that in case their OMR answer-sheets were found to be smudged, damaged or scratched by using eraser, nail, blade, white fluid/whitener etc., the same would be liable to be rejected/cancelled. Such a situation has been dealt with by the Single Bench of this Court in Anshu and others vs. State of Haryana and others,. 2018(2) SCT 66, wherein it has been observed that in such an eventuality, the OMR Answer-Sheet would be liable to be rejected for evaluation and the candidature would stand cancelled. Letter Patent Appeal No.92 of 2017, preferred against the said judgment of Learned Single Judge, was dismissed on 20.01.2017 and the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.8430 of 2017 as filed to assail the judgment passed in the said LPA, had also been dismissed by the Apex Court on 27.03.2017. It being so, it is explicit that the OMR Answer-sheet of the petitioner has rightly been rejected for its evaluation. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the instant petition is sans any merit and therefore, it deserves 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 06-06-2021 10:00:30 ::: LPA No.463-2021 (O&M) --5--
dismissal.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment dated 05.04.2021, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Dismissed.
(JASWANT SINGH) (SANT PARKASH)
JUDGE JUDGE
20.05.2021
sonika/avin
whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 06-06-2021 10:00:30 :::