Allahabad High Court
Km. Aneeta Yadav And 12 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 August, 2022
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12663 of 2022 Petitioner :- Km. Aneeta Yadav And 12 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Srivastava,Alkeshwar Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K.S. Parihar Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Atul Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri A.K.S. Parihar, learned counsel for respondent Board and; learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 21.5.2022 passed by respondent no.2/Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board, Prayagraj, whereby the petitioners' representations made with respect to rejection of their candidature resulting in non-evaluation of their O.M.R. answer sheets, had been rejected.
3. It is a common case of the petitioners that due to inadvertence, the petitioners did not darken the circles/bubbles to demarcate the question booklet series in column 4 of the OMR answer sheets for Assistant Teacher (LT) Grade, UPTET Examination 2020-21. Perusal of the photocopy of the candidate copy of the OMR answer sheets of the petitioners (as annexed to the writ petition) indicates, though in the box meant for that purpose, the petitioner had marked the question booklet series correctly by marking the responses - A, B, C and D, consistent with the question booklet series issued to them, however, the petitioners did not darken the appropriate circle/bubble mentioned below the box. Thus, the petitioners did not signify for the purpose of computerized evaluation, the question booklet series number, attempted by them.
4. At present, three submissions have been advanced. First, reliance has been placed on an order of a learned single Judge dated 17.4.2013 passed in Writ - A No. 9676 of 2013 (Upendra Nath Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Ors) as confirmed in Special Appeal No. 1086 of 2013 (State of U.P. & 2 Ors. vs. Upendra Nath Yadav), decided on 9.2.2015. Second, it has been submitted, instructions issued by the respondents were ambiguous. Instructions clearly did not stipulate that the OMR answer sheets shall not be evaluated, unless question booklet series number was clearly marked by darkening the appropriate circle/bubble in column 4 of the OMR sheets. Third, it has been submitted, in any case, there is no discrepancy in the bar code printed on the OMR answer sheets. In absence of any allegation of foul play, the respondent was always aware of the question booklet series issued to the individual petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Board would rely on stipulation 2, 9 and 15 to submit, it was a clear stipulation disclosed to the petitioners that the appearance in the examination was provisional and they would be entitled to evaluation of their answer sheets subject to their filling up all details correctly and appropriately. Insofar as, it is undisputed, the petitioners did not darken the appropriate circle/bubble to indicate the question booklet series issued to them, the petitioners failed to comply with the simple and unequivocal stipulation made known to them. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. Further, reliance has been placed on the division bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 494 of 2020 (Shiv Prasad Duvey & 3 Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr.), decided on 8.4.2021 as also on the another decision of the division bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 33 of 2022 (Vinay Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Ors.), decided on 27.1.2022.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is not disputed that the petitioners did not darken the appropriate circles/bubbles to signify the question booklet series issued to them. The said fact does not require adjudication. Then, stipulation 2, 9 and 15 of the stipulations appended to the question papers, issued for the benefit of the petitioners read as below:
"2. ??????????? ?????? ???? ?????????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????? ) ????? ???? ?????? ???? ????????? ???? ?? ?? ???????
9. ????? ????? ?? ???????????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???????????? ???????? ???????? ?? ?????
15. ???????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ???????? ??? ??? ?????????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????????? ???? ???? ???????"
7. Once, it was made known to the petitioners that they would suffer the consequences of non-filling their relevant particulars in the answer sheets, by darkening appropriate circles/bubbles appearing for individual fields necessary for proper evaluation and result preparation, the petitioners cannot claim equity in their favour. No justifiable reason has been shown as may have prevented the petitioners from filling up the correct details as was expected. Students and candidates appearing in such examinations are well aware of the fact that OMR answer sheets are not examined manually but are examined by computers and the reading machines. In face of large number of students appearing in the examination, timely conclusion of the examination process cannot be ensured except through use of technology as has been done by the respondent Board.
8. Once the procedure to be adopted was made known to the petitioners, they cannot be heard to claim any benefit of their fault. Also, they cannot invoke equity though they are at fault. The division bench of this Court in Shiv Prasad Duvey (supra), amongst others, had a similar issue to deal with. In paragraph 4 of that case, it was observed as under:
4. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in a nutshell, are that the writ petitioners (i.e. who filed Writ A No.19486 of 2019), out of which four are before us as appellants, had not correctly darkened/ filled the bubbles/ circles of the OMR sheets, either in respect of their roll number or booklet series number or both, even though it was mandated by the instructions provided therein. Consequently, their OMR sheets were not evaluated. The appellants 2 to 4 before us are those who had filled their roll number correctly in numerals, in the rectangular box provided in the OMR sheet, but had not correctly darkened/ filled the bubbles/ circles below to confirm the roll number filled in the rectangular box. Whereas appellant no.1, in addition to the above-noted mistake committed by the appellants 2 to 4, had also committed a mistake in respect of filling the Booklet series number. As a consequence whereof, their answers in the OMR sheets were not evaluated. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing that the controversy in issue is squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal No.834 of 2013 and Special Appeal Defective No. 117 of 2014.
9. After considering the submissions advanced, the division bench of this Court dismissed the Special Appeal Defective No. 494 of 2020 following the decision of another division bench of this Court in Jai Karan Singh & 52 others v. State of UP and 4 others: Special Appeal No.90 of 2018, decided on 25.4.2018; and Ramesh Chandra & 17 others v. The State of UP & 2 others: Special Appeal No.247 of 2020, decided on 09.06.2020. Thereafter, the division bench of this Court passed the following order in Special Appeal Defective No. 494 of 2020:
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. Upon perusal of the record, we find that in so far as the appellants 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, on their part, there appears a solitary mistake, that is with regard to erroneous darkening/ filling of the circles/ bubbles, relating to their Roll number, in the OMR sheet. In respect of appellant no.1, in addition to above, there is erroneous filling of booklet series number as well. The argument on behalf of the appellants is that this a pure human error and as there existed a roll number column in the OMR sheet to be filled in numerals, and the numerals were written correctly, therefore, if there is a manual check of their Roll numbers, their result can easily be declared.
11. No doubt, it does appear to be a hard case, at least for the appellants 2, 3 and 4. But the issue here is whether the writ court should interfere in such matters, particularly when instructions are clear and categorical that an erroneous entry in the OMR sheet in respect of certain fields of information sought, including Roll number, would render the answer sheet invalid. The said issue is no longer res integra. In Jai Karan Singh's case (supra), a Division Bench of this court, dealing with a similar issue, observed:
"The writ petitioners had admittedly given incorrect information in the OMR Answer sheet relating to either the Registration Number, the Roll Number or Question Booklet Series and the Language attempted and that is why their results have not been declared. The manual check can be conducted but the larger issue before the Court is whether such a direction should be given at all. In our opinion, it is for the examining body to work out a method for the recruitment process and the manner in which Answer Sheets is evaluated and once clear instructions have been given to the candidates that incorrect information relating to Registration Number, Roll Number, Question Booklet Series and Language attempted would lead to non- declaration of the result, the examining body should not be directed to conduct a manual check..... This would take substantial time and ultimately result in causing delay in the declaration of the result. It is this delay that was sought to be eliminated by requiring the candidates to give reasons in the OMR Answer Sheet so that they could be scanned by electronic means.
.......The error committed by the candidates cannot be said to be minor in nature. It is the Registration Number, Roll Number that determines identity of the candidates. The candidates who appeared in the examination were mature students and were to be appointed as Assistant Teachers in institution. They should have read the instructions that was issued time and again and should have correctly filled the entries relating to Roll Number, Registration Number, Question Booklet Series and Language attempted. The entries were, however, inaccurately filled as a result of which the scanner has not been able to process the result."
(Emphasis Supplied) Similar view has been taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chandra's case (supra) by observing: "if this Court permits the appellants and persons alike to have manual corrections in the OMR sheet, then that will frustrate the entire purpose of using technology for expeditious completion of the process of selection."
12. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that Roll Number was written correctly in numerals therefore there was no justification to reject the answer sheet only because the circles/ bubbles were not filled correctly does not appeal to us. Because, it is from the colouring or darkening of circles/ bubbles in the OMR sheets that the scanner is able to process the information. The mention of Roll Number in numerals might be to keep a double-check on foul play. However, whatever the purpose might be, we need not speculate on that. The fact remains that once the instructions were clear and were to apply universally to all candidates, if the error as per the instructions is fatal, a hands-off approach by the Writ Court is justified, hence we find no good reason to interfere in the matter. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
10. Insofar as the decision of the division bench of this Court in Upendra Nath Yadav (supra) is concerned, the same is wholly distinguished. In that case, by order dated 17.4.2013, a learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and issued direction to re-evaluate the OMR answer sheet of that petitioner. That direction became a subject matter of challenge in special appeal. In that case, the division bench refused to reverse the discretion already exercised. Such is not the case here.
11. In view of the above, I find myself bound by the decision of the division bench. No ground exists to offer interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.8.2022 Prakhar