Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jaswant Singh Deeya vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 December, 2021
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
(1 of 3) [CW-11096/2018]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11096/2018
Jaswant Singh Deeya S/o Shri Hamir Singh Deeya, Aged About
31 Years, 316, Dahiya Gali, Vpo Rampura (N.k.v.), Tehsil And
District Sirohi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mardia.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG.
Mr. Deepak Chandak, AGC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 08/12/2021 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of the action of the respondents in not awarding marks to the petitioner for Question No.142 in paper-II of Social Science.
It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner had appeared in the written examination for the post of Senior Teacher (Social Science) pursuant to the Recruitment- 2016.
The petitioner obtained 320.68 marks in aggregate and sought copy of the OMR Sheet.
(Downloaded on 09/12/2021 at 09:07:34 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-11096/2018] From the OMR Sheet and the marks obtained by the petitioner, it would apparent that the petitioner was not awarded marks for Question No.142 on account of darkening of two bubbles though the petitioner had marked the correct answer.
Submissions have been made that in case the correct answer given by the petitioner is taken into consideration, the petitioner would obtain higher marks. The petitioner now falls in the cut-off for the reserve list at merit No.38, his merit would improve and his chances of getting picked-up for appointment would get brighter and, therefore, the respondents be directed to award marks to the petitioner based on the correct answer given by the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State made submissions that a bare look at the OMR Sheet (Annex.-7) would reveal that the petitioner besides filling-up the bubble for answer No.3, has also partially filled-up bubble indicating answer No.2, for which, there was specific instruction indicated in the OMR Sheet itself requiring the candidate, not to mark any other thing in bubble other than the answer bubble, which the candidate wanted to mark and the same was also illustrated by giving examples in this regard.
It is submitted that admittedly in front of Question No.142, the petitioner not only filled-up bubble No.3, the bubble No.2 was partially filled-up by the petitioner.
Submissions have been made that the OMR Sheet are checked by computers and once more than one bubble is marked, the machine was bound to reject the said answer and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to award of marks for the Question No.142 and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. (Downloaded on 09/12/2021 at 09:07:34 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-11096/2018] I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
A bare look at the OMR Answer Sheet (Annex.-7) reveals that in front of Question No.142, the answer bubble No.3 is fully filled-up by the petitioner and the answer bubble No.2 has been partially filled-up by the petitioner.
Instruction No.2 in the OMR Sheet (Annex.-7), reads as under:-
"2- d`i;k izR;sd iz'u dk mÙkj dsoy ,d gh lEcfU/kr xksys dks uhys ckWy isu }kjk iwjs xgjs fu'kku ds Hkj dj nhft,A tSlk uhps fn, x, uewus esa fn[kk;k x;k gSA"
Under the above instructions, specific indications with illustrations have been given regarding proper filling-up/improper filling-up of the answer bubbles.
Apparently, the petitioner, had filled-up answer bubble No.3 fully and answer bubble No.2 partially and as such, the OMR Answer Sheet Reading Machine, rejected the answer of the petitioner and did not award any marks for Question No.142.
Non-award of marks based on the nature of filling-up the bubbles by the petitioner, cannot be faulted.
As the petitioner has failed to fill-up the bubble as per the requirement, clearly indicated in the OMR Answer Sheet, the non- award of marks for Question No.142, cannot be faulted.
In that view of the matter, the claim made by the petitioner for award of marks for Question No.142, cannot be countenanced.
Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 154-PKS/-
(Downloaded on 09/12/2021 at 09:07:34 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)