Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Pankaj Kumar Tiwari vs The Chairman Jharkhand Academic ... on 6 February, 2015

Author: Shree Chandrashekhar

Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar

                                      1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 W.P.(C) No. 4371 of 2014

       Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, son of Somnath Tiwari, resident of New
       Area, Hamidganj, P.O. & P.S.­Daltonganj, Palamau
                                                     ...   ...  Petitioner
                         Versus
       1. The Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, 
            Namkum, Ranchi
       2. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, 
            Namkum, Ranchi
                                                     ...  ... Respondent

    CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

       For the Petitioner      : Mr. Shashank Shekhar Prasad, Advocate
                     
       For the Respondents   : Mr. M.S. Anwar, Sr. Advocate
                                 : Mr. Afaque Ahmed, Advocate
                         ...........

02/06.02.2015

  Seeking quashing of result dated 28.05.2013 of TET  2012, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. It is stated  that pursuant to Advertisement No.  95  of 2012, the petitioner submitted application for Class VI­VIII  (Assistant Teacher) and he appeared in the examination held  on   26.04.2013.   The   result   was   published   on   28.05.2013   in  which   his   status   has   been   shown   rejected   for   the   reason  "BLANK     QBSE".     The   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner  submits   that   on   a   hyper   technical   ground   the   result   of   the  petitioner has  not been published and therefore, a direction  may be issued to the respondent­Jharkhand Academic Council  for publishing the result of the petitioner.  

3. As against the above, Mr. M.S. Anwar, the learned  Senior   counsel   appearing   for   the   respondent­Jharkhand  2 Academic Council submits that this issue has been considered  by this Court in   other cases also and the matter was taken  before the Letters Patent Court. The issue is now settled by a  decision of this Court that no interference is required where a  candidate has failed to blacken  bubbles  in the O.M.R. Sheet.  Explaining   the   reason,   the   learned   Senior   counsel   for   the  respondent­JAC   submits   that   the   entire   process   of   the  assessment   of   O.M.R.   Sheet     is   fully   computerized   and   if   a  candidate   has   failed   to   blacken   bubbles   or     if   he/she   has  incorrectly filled his/her  bubbles in O.M.R. Sheets,  the same  cannot be read by the computer and it would stand   rejected. 

4. In the present case, I find that the petitioner has not  denied that he failed to blacken QBSE and thus, in view of the  reasons   explained   by   the   learned   Senior   counsel   for   the  respondent­Jharkhand Academic Council, I am of the opinion  that   no   interference   is   required   in   the   present   case   and  accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

   (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Satyarthi