Jharkhand High Court
Vandana Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 30 January, 2018
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S. N. Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S). No. 6414 of 2017
=============================================================
Vandana Kumari, wife of Rajeev Ranjan, resident of New Makchund Toli, P.O. Chutia, P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi ... ... Petitioner VERSUS
1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, HRD and Personnel having its office at 1st Floor, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Distt. Ranchi.
2. Jharkhand Academic Council through its Secretary having its office at Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
4. The Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council through its Secretary, having its office at Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents.
============================================================= For Petitioner : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate For Respondents : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, SC-V ============================================================= CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK 03/ 30.01.2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for commanding upon the respondents to issue the pass certificate of the petitioner, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has secured 96 marks as per merit- cum-result declared by the respondent-authorities but inspite of securing 64% marks and declared qualified, the pass certificate has not been issued to the petitioner by the respondent in JAC-TET Level-2 Exam.
3. The case of the petitioner in narrow compass is that in view of Advt. No. 21/2016 for Teacher's Eligibility Test (TET), petitioner being eligible candidate under the aforesaid advertisement, applied for the same. Upon application, the present petitioner was issued admit card for appearing in the test which was conducted on 20.11.2016. The exam so conducted by the respondents was in form of marking of OMR Sheets. Thereupon, merit-cum- result was issued by the respondents wherein he had obtained 64% marks and as such, was declared qualified. The name and roll number of the petitioner, Vandana Kumari, having Roll No. 2044507 was also reflected in the results. It 2 has further been submitted that the present merit-cum-result list were declared on 18.04.2017. In the merit-cum-result list declared thereof by the respondents a star mark was shown against the name of the petitioner and there was a note in the above merit list which states that "All candidates who are qualified with a (*) star mark are subject to verification". As the petitioner, as per calculation has obtained the required marks and secured 64% in the above test and as such, was excepting to be declared qualified and thereby pass certificate should be issued to her. Though, in view of merit list, final results were published but to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, her name was not reflected and pass certificate of the petitioner was withheld. The petitioner approached the respondent-authorities in regards to the non-issuance of pass certificate, in reply to which it was informed that there was certain lacuna in the OMR Sheets and as such, the pass certificate was not issued in favour of the petitioner. As the name of the petitioner was not there in the final result and pass certificates were not issued to her, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon'ble Court.
4. Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that merely because of a technical error committed by the petitioner, she cannot be deprived of her pass certificate, as admittedly she has been declared successful. In the result, it has been shown that the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher and has obtained 64% marks. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner has also been declared qualified and it is not a case that the computer has invalidated the candidature of the petitioner and as such, she could not have been considered for granting pass certificate. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the several judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts, which are as follows:-
i) Smt. Sujatha Cheruku & Anr. Vs. the State of Telangana [(2017) SCC Online Hyd. 408];
ii) Sharmila Kumari (Miss) Vs. the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer & Ors. [(2011) SCC Online Raj. 2430]
iii) Sheela Sen Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [(2012) SCC Online Raj.
2638];
iv) Savita Budania Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(2012) SCC Online Raj.
2585]
v) Arun Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary & Ors.
[(2013) SCC Online All. 175] 3 Admittedly, the error though committed by the petitioner was unintentional, which is not going to effect the merit list, as already she has been declared successful.
5. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents.
Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JAC vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel argued that in no way the case of the petitioner can be considered as admittedly the error was on the part of petitioner and that cannot be cured. The petitioner failed to mark the OMR Sheets, in which she ought to have mentioned for the post which she has applied for but in absence of that, the result of the petitioner was rightly not published and she has rightly not declared pass. Referring to several paragraphs of the counter-affidavit, learned counsel argues that in the remarks column star mark has been mentioned that means, subject to verification and the petitioner is supposing it to be the final merit list or the results has come with an expectation to be issued pass certificate, which cannot be done as the said was not final result and the same was provisional merit list subject to verification and after verification, it was found defective and as such, her results could not have been published and the case of the petitioner stood rejected. Learned counsel for the respondents also relies on several orders of this Court passed by the learned Single Judge and also one order of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Learned counsel heavily relied on order dated 08.02.2016 passed in W.P(S). No. 1782 of 2014 (Jitendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) reported in 2017 (1) J.L.J.R. 547 and argues that evaluation being a computerized system, it has been uniformly followed and all such applications suffering from such incorrect filing of OMR sheet or wrong darkening of relevant circle of OMR sheet relating to essential entries of Roll number/ booklet series etc. have been rejected at the threshold by the computer. Since in the case of the petitioner also circles have not been darken, as such, her case ought to have been rejected and has rightly been rejected and the ratio of the aforesaid case directly imply in the instant case and in view of dismissal of W.P.(S). No. 1782 of 2014, this case also merits dismissal. The order of learned Single Judge was also challenged before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 144 of 2014 (Ajit Kumar Gope & Ors. Vs. the Chairman, the Examination Controller) and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, after examining each and every aspect of the 4 matter regarding OMR sheet and also considering the arguments advanced by the JPSC was of the view that, "since the appellants have not filled in the OMR sheets as per the mandatory instructions by shadowing the bubbles in the OMR sheets, the OMR scanning machine rejected the OMR sheets and the representations of the appellants were also considered and rejected by the JPSC in the last week of March, 2014".
Learned counsel further submits that the Division Bench while dismissing the LPA has specifically considered that OMR answer sheet will be processed electronically as such invalidation of answer sheet due to incomplete/ incorrect filing/ shadowing of the bubbles on OMR sheet, will be the sole responsibility of the candidates. OMR Scanning machine will reject OMR sheet in which Roll No., Centre Code, Subject Code, Booklet Series and Booklet No. are not properly and correctly shadowed.
6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. In the instant case, it is not invalidation of answer sheet, neither the OMR sheet has been rejected by the computer. On the other hand, computer has shown the petitioner as qualified and her case has not been rejected by the computer, which is also apparent from Annexure-3 page 19 of the writ application. It was only manually, the pass certificate was not issued on the technical ground that in the remarks column of the provisional merit list, star mark has been mentioned that means, subject to verification and after verification, the application submitted by the petitioner was found defective and hence, the result of the petitioner was not published.
7. In view of the aforesaid observation, the instant case is distinguished from other cases. It is not a case that petitioner has been disqualified by the computer itself. In case of Smt. Sujatha Cheruku & Anr. Vs. the State of Telangana (supra), Hon'ble Court has held that, "to err is human but the Public Service Commission wants the human beings to be perfect. The Commission can frame rules for obedience by the candidates but when unintentional errors not relating to the merit of the candidate creeps in, whether a strict application of the rule is proper or not is the point involved in these cases." In the present realm, nobody can be said to be perfect, even the computers are not foolproof.
58. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondent-JAC to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and issue pass certificate to the petitioner, in the light of the aforesaid observation. Let it be made clear that the orders have been passed in particular facts and circumstances and cannot be treated as a precedent for other cases.
9. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) kunal/-