Punjab-Haryana High Court
Monika Yadav vs Staff Selection Commission And Another on 9 April, 2014
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
CWP No.168 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.168 of 2013
Date of Decision: 09.04.2014
Monika Yadav ....Petitioner
Versus
Staff Selection Commission and another ....Respondents
BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sarvpreet S. Gurna, Advocate
for the respondents.
*****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the list, wherein, zero marks have been awarded to the petitioner and also for issuance of direction to the respondents to evaluate the `OMR' answer sheets of paper I and II of Tier- II of the Combined Graduate Level Examination-2012.
Briefly, the facts of the case, as mentioned in the petition, are that the Staff Selection Commission i.e respondent No.1 was assigned the responsibility for recruitment of Group C (non-technical) and Group B (non-gazetted - both technical and non-technical) posts and for that, a notice was published in "The Employment News/Rozgar Samachar" dated 24.03.2012, whereby, the On-line or Off-line Applications were invited from the eligible candidates for recruitment to different posts in various Ministries/Departments/Offices/ Cadre under Government of India for which the graduation from recognized University was the minimum educational Kaur Gurpreet 2014.04.24 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.168 of 2013 2 qualification. The petitioner belongs to a Backward Class and was eligible for applying to the said post. Hence, she submitted an on-line application form. She was assigned Roll No.1601030114, Ticket/Seat No.1020376 for Tier-I - Written Examination. Accordingly, she appeared in the examination and was declared qualified for Tier-II Examination. The result of the said examination was declared on 18.10.2012 and her name was not there in the merit list. Subsequently, it came to her notice that her `OMR' Answer Sheets were not evaluated and zero marks were awarded on account of the fact that while marking her Roll Number in the prescribed column on the OMR Sheet in Paper-I, she had darkened boxes bearing numbers `0601030114' in stead of `1601030114'.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ticket Number, Name of the Examination, Date of Birth and Test Form Number were also required to be written at the relevant places apart from Roll Number and the same were correctly mentioned by the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner incorporated all the details as required but inadvertently, she darkened box marked zero before the roll number so assigned and because of that reason, zero marking was done. The petitioner was illegally denied opportunity to compete for public employment despite being eligible and meritorious, whereas, there was no intention on the part of the petitioner in any manner either to play fraud or have some ulterior motive. It was an inadvertent mistake which might have been committed because of examination stress. Learned counsel also submits that no opportunity, whatsoever, was given to the petitioner and the action of the respondents was contrary to the principles of natural justice. A representation, in this regard, was also made to the respondents but no action was taken thereupon. Learned counsel also submits that the action of the respondents is not only arbitrary but also unjustified as well. In case, Kaur Gurpreet 2014.04.24 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.168 of 2013 3 there was error in marking or coding of a numeral of her Roll No. at one place on the OMR Answer Sheets, it cannot be presumed that the identity of the candidate was doubtful specially when the roll number was rightly written in numeral form. The petitioner should not be penalized for the mistake which was accidental and unintentional and because of that reason, the career of the petitioner is at stake. Learned counsel also submits that the conduct of the petitioner cannot be termed as malpractice in any manner or use of unfair means.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in CWP NO.13730 of 2012 titled as Rohit Kumar vs Union of India, decided on 27.07.2012 as well as the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case State of A.P. and another vs A. Vijayalakshmi and another 1983 AIR (A.P.) 321, in support of his contentions.
Written statement on behalf of the respondents has been filed, which is on record.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it was clearly mentioned in the Notice of the examination published in the Employment News/Rozgar Samachar under column General Instructions to be complied by the candidates in the Written Examination that the candidates are advised to fill up Roll No., Ticket Number, Test Form Number correctly, failing which, Answer Sheets will not be evaluated and the candidate would be awarded `Zero' marks. Learned counsel also submits that the case of the petitioner is not the only case of such like nature but 1529 other candidates were also there who have been awarded `zero' marks due to their mistake. He further submits that the list has now been finalized and the same cannot be disturbed/reviewed in any manner. Learned counsel also submits that in the judgment of Delhi High Court Kaur Gurpreet 2014.04.24 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.168 of 2013 4 passed in LPA No.562 of 2011 in Writ Petition (C) No.8087 of 2011, it has been held that the procedure for making applications cannot be given a go by for accommodating a few people and if this is done, there would be no obligation on anybody to follow any procedure resulting in an unmanageable situation.
Learned counsel also submits that Hon'ble the Apex Court has held the same view in judgment Karnataka Public Service Commission and others vs B.M. Shankar and others AIR 1992 Supreme Court 952.
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents on the file.
Admittedly, the notice was published by the respondents in the Employment News dated 24.03.2012, wherein, the candidates were advised to read the instructions carefully before filling OMR Sheet. It was also mentioned in the OMR Sheet that the answer sheet with incorrect coding of any of the particulars would be awarded `zero' marks. Similar instructions were specifically provided in the question paper brochure in order to emphasize the essentiality of furnishing and coding these details. The petitioner committed a mistake while coding her roll number and as per instructions, `zero' marks were awarded to her. It was not a single case of the petitioner but there were total 1529 more candidates who were awarded `zero' marks due to mistake committed by them while filling up/coding the OMR Answer Sheets.
The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in Rohit Kumar's case (supra), has no relevancy as in that case, the process was in between, whereas, in the present case, the whole process has been completed and hence, the total merit list cannot be interfered with at this stage as not only, it will amount to review but would also reopen the whole process.
Kaur Gurpreet2014.04.24 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.168 of 2013 5
In an identical issue, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court by relying upon the judgment of Union Public Service Commission vs GNCTD passed in WP(C) No.10558 of 2009, decided on 25.01.2010 has held as under :-
" 18. xxx xxx xxx that the procedure for making applications cannot be given a go by for accommodating a few people and if this is done, there would be no obligation on anybody to follow any procedure resulting in an unmanageable situation. It was further held that the procedure prescribed in the advertisement casts a duty on the applicants to apply in accordance therewith and they cannot be allowed to contend that their application should be accepted even if incomplete. Accordingly, the rejection of the applicants who had not submitted the documents required to be submitted alongwith the application form was upheld.
19. Else, what has been observed by us qua qualification, equally applies to submission of OBC Certificate also. It is well-nigh possible that a number of other OBC candidates, though otherwise eligible but not in possession of the OBC Certificate by the cut off date, did not apply under the belief that being required to enclose the OBC Certificate along with the application and being not in possession thereof, their applications would be deficient and not entertainable. It is yet further possible that, had such other applied and competed, the respondents in appeal and/or the petitioner in the writ petition may not have eligible. The respondents in appeal and the petitioner in the writ petition were clearly in the know that their applications were incomplete and took a chance. This Court cannot lay down a law which would encourage such practices. The terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement were intended, to guide/instruct the prospective applicants and there is no reason to dilute the same. Even otherwise, this Court Kaur Gurpreet would be loathe to issue mandamus/directive contrary to 2014.04.24 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.168 of 2013 6 the terms of selection/appointment (see Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs Ashrafulla Khan (2002) 2 SCC 560, FCI vs Ram Kesh Yadav (2007) 9 SCC 531, Maharishi Dayanand University vs Surjeet Kaur JT 2010(7) SC 179 and State of West Bengal vs Subhas Kumar Chatterjee (2010) 11 SCC 694.
In the present case, a condition was specifically mentioned that the candidates have to write Code No./Roll No./Ticket No./Name of the Examination/Date of Birth/Test Form Number at the relevant places in the OMR Answer Sheet and it was also mentioned that in case of incomplete coding of the details, zero marks will be awarded to the candidates.
Moreover, whole of the process has been completed and to reopen the issue again, would not only prejudice the interest of the selected candidates but also the selection process cannot be finalized as not only the case of the present petitioner is there but more than 1500 candidates are also there to whom zero marks were awarded.
Hence, there is no merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) 09.04.2014 JUDGE gurpreet Kaur Gurpreet 2014.04.24 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh