Jharkhand High Court
Jharkhand Public Service Commission ... vs Hulash Nayak on 19 January, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
LPA No. 392 of 2022
1. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Secretary, having
its office at Circular Road, P.O. - GPO, Ranchi, P.S. - Kotwali,
District - Ranchi
2. Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission,
having its office at Circular Road, P.O. - GPO, Ranchi, P.S. -
Kotwali, District - Ranchi
......Respondent No.4 and 5/ Appellants
Versus
1. Hulash Nayak, Aged - 53 years, son of Late Deoraj Nayak, Resident
of quarter No.1772/A9/A5/A, Road No.2, Swarnrekha Nagar, Ketari
Bagan, Chutia, Namkom P.O. - Namkom, P.S. - Namkom, District -
Ranchi ... Petitioner/Respondent
2. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of
Commercial Taxes, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.
- Dhurwa, P.S. - Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi
3. Secretary, Department of Planning cum Finance, having its office at 1 st
Floor, Project Building Dhurwa, P.O. - Dhurwa, P.S. - Jagarnathpur,
District - Ranchi
4. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. -
Dhurwa, P.S. - Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi
......Respondents No.1, 2 & 3/Respondents
With
LPA No. 393 of 2022
1. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Chairman, having
its office at Circular Road, P.O. - GPO, Ranchi, P.S. - Kotwali, Town
and District - Ranchi
2. The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having its
office at Circular Road, P.O. - GPO, P.S. - Kotwali, Town and
District - Ranchi
......Respondent No.2 and 3/ Appellants
Versus
1. Sanjay Kumar, Aged about - 49 years, son of Late Bhagat Prasad,
Residing at Flat No.2A, Block - A sapphire residency, Pragati Path,
Bahu Bazar, P.O. - Chuita, P.S. - Upper Bazar, Town and District -
Ranchi
... Petitioner/Respondent No.1
2. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/principal Secretary,
Commercial Tax Department, having its office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. - Dhurwa, Town and District - Ranchi
3. Shri Amod Kumar, Son of - Vijay Kumar Lal, through the
secretary/principal Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, having its
office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. - Dhurwa, Town and
District - Ranchi
......Respondents No.1 & 4/Respondents
2
---------------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Senior Advocate
: Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate
: Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate
: Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate
: Ms. Raajika Mahali, Advocate
---------------
Order No. 19/ Dated: 19th January 2024
Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
The instant Letters Patent Appeals have been filed challenging the order dated 28.06.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5502 of 2018 with W.P.(S) No.5618 of 2018.
2. L.P.A. No. 392 of 2022 and L.P.A. No. 393 of 2023 arise out of W.P.(S) No. 5502 of 2018 and W.P. (S) No. 5618 of 2018 respectively.
3. As recorded in the impugned order passed by the learned writ Court, though the writ petitioners in both cases had approached this Court with multiple prayers but they confined their prayer to the evaluation of their OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) answer sheet of paper-I, which relates to appointment to the post of Commercial Tax Officer through Jharkhand Finance Service (Limited) Competitive Examination, held on 20.05.2018, under Advertisement No. 10 of 2020 published by the appellants.
4. The writ petitioners were appointed to the post of Cooperative Extension Officer in the year 1997. In the course of their service, the appellants issued Advertisement No. 10 of 2010 for appointment to the post of Commercial Tax Officer through limited departmental examination. Being eligible in all respects as per the criteria laid down in the advertisement, the writ petitioners applied, admit cards were issued to them and they appeared in the examination held on 20.05.2018. The Roll number of writ petitioner Hulash Nayak was 10100038 and Roll number of writ petitioner Sanjay Kumar was 10100087. Both these writ petitioners claimed that they did well in the examination and were hopeful of being selected, as they tallied their answers with the answer key/revised answer key published by the appellants on the website.
3Thereafter, the result was published on 31.09.2018, wherein the roll numbers of the petitioners did not figure, and having no option left the writ petitions were preferred before this Court. After filing the writ petitions, the petitioners under the Right to Information Act got the information that their OMR answer sheet could not be evaluated because they had not properly darkened/blackened/shadowed the specified bubble/circle of the roll numbers.
5. It was the case of the writ petitioners before the writ Court that their case was on identical footing as compared to that of one Santosh Kumar Singh whose copy was evaluated by the appellants. The writ petitioners also relied upon the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2951 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No.29794 of 2016 (Ashish Kumar Bharti and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and others), wherein appropriate directions were issued to appoint the two petitioners to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) considering their outstanding merit although the OMR answer sheets were not evaluated and were rejected by the computer because of technical mistakes committed by the two petitioners while darkening the circles due to which the computer did not recognize their roll numbers. The appellants had contested the case and submitted before the learned writ Court that the OMR Sheet of Santosh Kumar Singh was never rejected by the OMR scanning machine and, therefore, his request was accepted by the appellants and also argued that the reliance placed by writ petitioners upon the case of "Ashish Kumar Bharti" (supra) is of no help to the writ petitioners, as the mandatory criteria for shadowing the OMR answer sheet was not properly brought before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and heavily relied upon the instructions regarding mandatory criteria for properly shadowing the bubbles on OMR answer sheet. The OMR answer sheet of Santosh Kumar Singh was produced before the Court for consideration upon a direction issued by the learned writ Court.
6. The learned writ Court considered the instructions mentioned at the back side of the OMR Sheet and held that the cases of the writ petitioners were on a similar footing when compared to that of Santosh Kumar Singh and relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble 4 Supreme Court in "Ashish Kumar Bharti" (supra), and allowed the writ petitions in the following manner: -
"15. From the aforesaid instructions, it is crystal clear that writing or marking on the answer sheet outside the demarcated area will invalidate the answer sheets. From perusal of the answer sheets of Santosh Kumar Singh, it appears that in column of Invigilator's signature, handwritten form number has been mentioned, which itself was sufficient reason for invalidation of the OMR answer sheet of Santosh Kumar Singh. The respondents have justified that it was mentioned in outside of demarcated area, but from perusal of the OMR answer sheet, the argument of learned counsel for the JPSC is falsified. In spite of that the answer sheet of Santosh Kumar Singh was evaluated. It became a ground and valid reason for the petitioners to move this Court and confine their prayer for evaluation of OMR sheets, which has been done in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh.
16. Since the respondent JPSC was aware of the instructions given in the admit card as well as on the back side of the OMR sheets, even then, the copy of Santosh Kumar Singh was evaluated. The petitioners' case is identical in nature and requires interference and there is no reason why their copies i.e. OMR answer sheets be not evaluated, as the examination was same. It is not a case of the respondents that out of negligence or illegality, copy of Santosh Kumar Singh has been evaluated, rather, they have justified the evaluation of OMR sheet.
17. It will not out of place to mention here that similar issue fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2461 of 2015 (Aashish Kumar Bharti & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.), wherein, the OMR answer sheet of that petitioner was not evaluated by the Jharkhand Academic Council for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT). When the grievance of that petitioner has not been redressed, the matter went up to the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2951 of 2018. The Hon'ble Apex Court after considering every aspect of the matter has clearly observed as under: -
"Ultimately, the names of the two petitioners were not there in the final merit list published by the Jharkhand Academic Council on the ground that, in their case Paper- I was rejected by the computer as the petitioners did not darken the circles that they were supposed to darken so that the computer would recognize their roll numbers.
Given the fact that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are candidates of outstanding merit, as has been found from the marks obtained in paper No.11, we are of the view that this technical mistake on their part of non darkening of circles should not stand in the way of their appointment. We are doing this given the special facts of these cases. We, therefore, direct the respondents to appoint petitioner No.1 and 2 in the vacant posts of Trained Graduate Teachers within a period of four weeks from today.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed."
(emphasis supplied) 5
18. Apart from the above observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aashish Kumar Bharti & Anr. (supra), the Jharkhand Public Service Commission has evaluated the OMR answer sheet in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh, whose OMR sheet has also been rejected earlier by the OMR Scanning Machine. Therefore, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the same ratio, as has been applied in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh, should have been applied in the case of these petitioners also. At this stage, the submission of learned counsel for the respondent JPSC that it was not brought before the Hon'ble Supreme Court about mandatory criteria for shadowing the OMR sheet, is not acceptable to this Court, inasmuch as, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that "Paper-I was rejected by the computer".
19. This Court is fully aware of the legal propositions that illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated, but in the instant case, the case of Santosh Kumar Singh was justified by the respondents JPSC and the same was never argued that due to illegality or in complete ignorance of law, the OMR answer sheet of Santosh Kumar Singh was evaluated. Though earlier this Court had not interfered in the matter of evaluation of the OMR answer sheets, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aashish Kumar Bharti & Anr. (supra), this order is being passed, which will not treated as a precedent for other cases.
20. As a sequel to the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements and facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the case of these petitioners needs consideration in light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aashish Kumar Bharti & Anr (supra) coupled with the benefit given in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh. As such, respondent Jharkhand Public Service Commission is directed to evaluate the OMR answer sheets of the petitioners, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
21. Since the petitioners have confined their prayers only for evaluation of the answer sheet, both these writ petitions are accordingly allowed to that extent only.
22. Let the original OMR answer sheets of Santosh Kumar Singh and the petitioners, Hulash Nayak and Sanjay Kumar, be returned back in sealed cover to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi forthwith."
7. It has been argued by the learned Senior counsel for the appellants that the learned writ Court has neither properly considered the instructions, nor has appreciated the distinguishing feature of the OMR Sheet of Santosh Kumar Singh when compared to that of the writ petitioners nor has considered the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the order in the case of "Ashish Kumar Bharti" (supra) considering the special facts of the case and directed to issue appointment letters. The learned Senior counsel has also submitted that 6 the judgments relied upon by the appellants passed in L.P.A. No. 144 of 2014 affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 14798 of 2014 and in L.P.A. No.55 of 2017 have also not been considered by the learned writ Court. The learned Senior counsel has also relied upon other judgments which have been discussed later in this judgment.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellants and has submitted that the learned writ Court has considered every aspect of the matter and has passed a well-reasoned order that calls for no interference. The appellants cannot be permitted to treat the writ petitioners differently from Santosh Kumar Singh to whom they had themselves given indulgence although as per the instructions, his OMR Sheet was also fit to be rejected. He has also submitted that the petitioners as per their assessment based on key answers as published by the appellants would have secured much higher marks as compared to the last selected candidate in their category and are accordingly meritorious candidates and, therefore, the judgment passed in the case of "Ashish Kumar Bharti" (supra) fully applies in this case and the writ petitioners have been rightly given relief by the learned writ Court. Findings of this Court
9. The foundational fact that the OMR answer sheets of the two writ petitioners were not evaluated and were rejected by the computer on account of technical mistakes committed by them while darkening the circles due to which the computer did not recognize their roll numbers is not in dispute. The sole point for consideration is-
"Whether the learned writ court was justified in directing the appellants to evaluate the OMR Sheets of the writ petitioners despite such technical mistakes committed by them while darkening the circles due to which the computer could not recognize their roll numbers and consequently rejected their OMR Sheets?"
10.The instructions as mentioned at the back of the OMR Sheet are quoted as under: -
"NOTE: Strict compliance of instructions is essential.
1. Fill up all the particulars in the answer sheet carefully. Request for change of answer sheet will not be entertained.7
2. Answer sheet will be processed by electronic device. Invalidation of answer script due to incomplete/incorrect filling of the relevant circle of Roll No. and Booklet Series in the OMR answer sheet shall result in cancellation of candidature. Any deficiency in filling up OMR will be the sole responsibility of the candidate. Please do not write or mark on this answer sheet outside the demarcated areas. It will invalidate your answer sheet.
3. Please use only BLUE/BLACK BALL POINT PEN to mark your answers. Pen/Pencil with any other colour or gel pen is prohibited. Use of any other papers, calculating machines/mobile phones and other gadgets etc. is prohibited. Their use will lead to disqualification and other legal actions.
4. While answering, choose the correct alternative from the four choices given below the question and mark the same in corresponding circle in your answer sheet. While marking your answers darken the circle as shown as correct in the example; also few examples of wrong shadowing is given below:
5. Please do not overwrite or erase circles because it will be treated as multiple/wrong answer, for which no mark will be allotted.
6. An example is given below of how to fill/mark Roll No. 41311706 and Booklet Series B. Accordingly, you have to fill/mark the Roll No. and Booklet Series given to you in your Answer sheet.
7. Please handover the OMR answer sheet to the Invigilator before leaving the examination hall.
8. Failure to adhere the instructions above will render your OMR answer sheet invalid.
"
11.The very heading of the instructions indicates that strict compliance is required. The instructions also give examples to show which could be wrong shadowing of the circles and a sample of the correct way to shadow the circle, has also been given. Further, the instructions also given by way of example how the shadowing of the circles concerning various digits of the roll number and the booklet series is to be done. It has been further specifically mentioned in the instructions that all particulars in the answer sheets are required to be carefully filled and even a request for change of answer sheets will not be entertained.
8Further clause 2 of the instructions stipulate that the answer sheets are to be processed by electronic device and in case any answer sheet is invalidated on account of incomplete/incorrect filling of the relevant circles of the roll number and the booklet series in the OMR answer sheets, the same will result in cancellation of candidature. It also provides that any deficiency in filling up the OMR answer sheet will be the sole responsibility of the candidate. There is a further instruction not to write or mark outside the demarcated areas on the answer sheet which would invalidate the answer sheet. The manner of darkening the circle has been mentioned by way of illustration in clause 4, and clause 8 of the instructions reiterates that failure to adhere to the instructions would render the OMR answer sheet invalid.
12.The aforesaid instructions have been made on account of the reason that the answer sheet is to be processed through an electronic device without human intervention and the responsibility to correctly follow the instructions has been fastened upon the candidate himself by clearly providing through clause 2 of the instructions that any deficiency in filling up OMR answer sheet will be the sole responsibility of the candidate.
13.In the judgment dated 11th of September 2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J & K Board of Professional Entrance Examination & Others vs. Pankaj Sharma and Another [Civil Appeal No. 7158 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 16110 of 2017], the respondents had filled up in the OMR answer sheet relating to 'A' series question paper instead of 'B' series of question paper and consequently the answer sheet was checked on the basis of booklet series 'A' and the High Court had granted compensation to the concerned candidate by holding that though the initial mistake was on the part of the candidate but the invigilator at the Examination Hall and the Deputy Superintendent of the Examination Centre ought to have pointed out the error to the candidate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while allowing the appeal observed that the OMR answer sheets are checked by scanning, no manual process is involved and held that once the High Court had arrived at the conclusion that the candidate was initially at fault it was difficult to uphold the order of the High Court on the ground that the invigilator at the Examination Hall 9 and the Deputy Superintendent of the Examination Centre ought to have pointed out the error to the candidate. The Findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is quoted as under:
"It is difficult for us to uphold the order of the High Court on the reasoning that though, the initial mistake was on the part of the respondent, the Invigilator at the Examination Hall and the Deputy Superintendent of the Examination Centre ought to have pointed out the error to the respondent so as to facilitate correction by him, on account of which lapse the respondent had suffered. The OMR answer sheets are checked by scanning. No manual process was involved. The candidates had been cautioned in advance. Once the High Court arrived at the conclusion that the respondent was initially at fault, the impugned order automatically become unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Pending applications shall stand disposed of."
14.In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2020) 19 SCC 430 (State of Tamil Nadu and others vs. G. Hemalatathaa and Another), it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos. 8, 10 and 13 that instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory having force of law and they have to be strictly complied with and it has also been held that the strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the instructions are of paramount importance. Paragraphs Nos. 8, 10 and 13 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under: -
"8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. The Instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to be strictly complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission.
10. In spite of the finding that there was no adherence to the Instructions, the High Court granted the relief, ignoring the mandatory nature of the Instructions. It cannot be said that such exercise of discretion should be affirmed by us, especially when such direction is in the teeth of the Instructions which are binding on the candidates taking the examinations.
13. After giving a thoughtful consideration, we are afraid that we cannot approve the judgment of the High Court as any order in favour of the candidate who has violated the mandatory Instructions would be laying down bad law. The other submission made by Ms Mohana that an order can be passed by us under Article 142 of the Constitution which shall not be treated as a precedent also does not appeal to us."10
15.In the judgment passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 144 of 2014 (Ajit Kumar Gope and Others vs. The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi and Another), the OMR Sheets of the appellants were rejected on the ground that they had not coloured the bubbles against the subject code and the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge directing the authorities to consider the representation of the appellants and pass appropriate order but the appellants were aggrieved by such order and preferred appeal. The Division Bench ultimately referred to the mandatory instructions about filling up the OMR Sheets and recorded the submissions of JPSC that the appellants had not filled the OMR Sheets as per the mandatory instruction by shadowing the bubbles in the OMR Sheets; the OMR Scanning Machine had rejected such OMR Sheets and the representations of the appellants were also considered and rejected during the pendency of the LPA. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal with a liberty to the appellants to challenge the order of rejection by JPSC in accordance with law, if so advised. The said order of the Division Bench was the subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 14798 of 2014 and the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed vide order dated 09.06.2014.
16.In another judgment passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 55 of 2017 (Mishra Somesh Kumar Shiv Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others), the appeal was arising out of judgment and order dated 09.01.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 5803 of 2016 whereby the petitioner was aggrieved on account of rejection of his candidature due to the fact that certain bubbles were to be darkened for giving Roll Number, Paper Code, Centre Code etc. but there was an error on the part of the candidate in giving these details due to which the OMR Sheet was rejected by the scanning machine. The learned writ Court dismissed the writ petition and the Division Bench also dismissed the appeal by, inter alia, observing that the darkening of the circles is part and parcel of the examination process; the process of the data of the candidates is through OMR scanning machine and the candidates are bound to give correct data to the machine through darkening the circles. Paragraph 3 of the judgment is quoted as under: -
11"3. 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.
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) ....................................."
17.In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the considered view that filling up OMR Sheets as per the given instructions was mandatory and such instructions have the force of law and errors committed by the candidates in filling up the circles of the digits of the roll number leading to rejection of such OMR Sheets would lead to rejection of candidature of such candidates and no mandamus can be issued to correct the OMR Sheets manually. Such OMR Sheets suffer from fatal defects and are not capable of being evaluated through the electronic device meant for examining such OMR Sheets. The writ petitioners who had committed errors in circling the digits of the roll numbers have to take responsibility and face the consequences of the rejection of their candidature as such OMR Sheets get rejected directly by the electronic device even if the roll numbers have been correctly written in handwriting in the OMR Sheets. Since the electronic device would not evaluate the OMR Sheets having errors in encircling the digits of the roll number, the only way to evaluate such OMR Sheets would be manual which is not permissible considering the scheme of the examination process. Such errors do not fall under the category where the OMR Sheets are evaluated by the electronic device but there are 12 other discrepancies pointed out by the authorities.
18.In the aforesaid background, the matter of the candidate namely Santosh Kumar Singh is required to be considered which has been relied upon by the learned writ Court to grant relief to the writ petitioners.
19.So far as another candidate, namely, Santosh Kumar Singh is concerned, it was specifically pointed out by the appellants by filing a supplementary counter affidavit in the writ record that the OMR Sheet of Santosh Kumar Singh was never rejected by the OMR Scanning Machine as Santosh Kumar Singh had not written anything outside the demarcated area/guide mark of the OMR Sheet and thus, the Scanning Machine had evaluated the OMR Sheet of Santosh Kumar Singh. It was pointed out to the Court that Santosh Kumar Singh had written his roll number in the area specifically earmarked for the signature of the invigilator on account of which the OMR Scanning Machine did not reject the OMR Sheet of Santosh Kumar Singh. However, the objection raised by the appellants in connection with such writing of roll number by Santosh Kumar Singh was duly taken care of by the appellants and ultimately his result was declared. It was also pointed out that the OMR Sheet having been rejected by the machine cannot be evaluated as there is no procedure to evaluate the OMR Sheet manually.
20.This Court finds that there is a difference between OMR Sheet having been rejected on account of incorrect bubbling which has happened in the case of the writ petitioners in the present cases and any other circumstance as was there in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh which did not trigger rejection of the OMR Sheet by the electronic device. This distinguishing feature of the case of Santosh Kumar Singh as compared to that of the present writ petitioners has not been taken care of by the learned Single Judge.
21.This Court also finds that though the learned writ Court has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 144 of 2014 and also L.P.A. No. 55 of 2017 (supra), but has not considered the same while recording the findings in the case. This Court is of the considered view that the present cases are squarely covered by the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of this Court in L.P.A. No. 55 of 2017 and also the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
1322.In the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2951 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No.29794 of 2016 (Ashish Kumar Bharti and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and others), appellants belonging to the reserved categories did exceptionally well in the entrance examination to become a Trained Graduate Teacher. The appellant no.1 stood 4th having secured 221 marks out of 300 in Paper-II. The examination was held in two parts- Paper - I consisted of English, Hindi and General Knowledge and Paper-II dealt with the concerned subject. It was common ground that the marks obtained in Paper-I were not to count and it required a minimum of 33 out of 100 marks. The appellant no.2 stood 3rd in the merit list. The marks obtained by the petitioners in Paper-II was displayed on the website of Jharkhand Academic Council though it was stated by the respondents that it was a bonafide mistake. The names of these two candidates were not there in the final merit list and their candidature was rejected on the ground that Paper-I was rejected by computer as the said petitioners did not darken the circles that they were supposed to darken so that the computer would recognize their roll numbers. After recording the aforesaid facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recorded that the petitioners were candidates of outstanding merit and was of the view that technical mistake on their part of not darkening of circles should not stand in the way of their appointment and clearly recorded that they were doing this given the special facts of their cases, and directed the respondents to appoint the petitioners in the vacant post of Trained Graduate Teachers. It is important to note that the Hon'ble Supreme did not direct the respondents of the case to evaluate the OMR Sheets of the petitioners and straightaway directed for their appointment. This Court is of the considered view that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ashish Kumar Bharti" (supra) was passed in the special facts of that case and no such direction can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the reliance of the writ petitioners on the judgment passed in the case of "Ashish Kumar Bharti" (supra) is of no help to the writ petitioners.
23.In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the considered view that the learned writ Court was not justified in directing the appellants to 14 evaluate the OMR Sheets of the writ petitioners despite technical mistakes committed by them while darkening the circles due to which the computer could not recognize their roll numbers and consequently rejected their OMR Sheets. The point formulated in paragraph no.9 above is answered in favour of the appellants and against the writ petitioners.
24.As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the impugned order passed by the learned writ Court directing the evaluation of the OMR Sheets of the writ petitioners is set aside. Consequently, the writ petitions stand dismissed and both the Letters Patent Appeals are hereby allowed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul/Saurav/ -