Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Heena Khan vs Rajasthan High Court ... on 6 August, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:32997-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12739/2024
Heena Khan D/o Shri Ahmed Khan Kayamkhani, Aged About 32
Years, R/o D-5/76, Pratap Nagar, Labour Colony, Bhilwara,
(Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through The Registrar
General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh
Mr. Sarwar Khan
Mr. Mohit Singh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chayan Bothra for
Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr.Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
06/08/2024 By the Court (Per, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Mathur):
1. By way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to evaluate the OMR sheet of the petitioner by manual process and she may be allowed to participate in the recruitment process initiated by the respondents for the cadre of Civil Judge pursuant to the advertisement dated 9.4.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner submitted an application for appointment to the post of Civil Judge in response to the advertisement dated 9.4.2024. After (Downloaded on 13/08/2024 at 08:34:19 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:32997-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-12739/2024] being granted the admit card, the petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination held on 23.6.2024 but her result was not declared. On being enquired, it was informed that the petitioner had committed certain defaults while filling the OMR sheets. Learned counsel submitted that the action of the respondents amounts to exclusion of the petitioner from the process of selection despite she being meritorious. It was contended that Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of "Vashist Narayan Kumar v. State of Bihar" reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 002 has held that on a mere mistake by the applicant, who signed the printed form, he should not be penalised and if permitted, it would not make any difference to the ultimate result.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner did not follow the instructions given in the OMR sheets and has darkened the circle "2" of the OMR sheet instead of circle "3" for 6th digit of her roll number. Learned counsel further submitted that the controversy involved in the matter has already been set to rest by this Court in the case of "Payal Soni & Anr. v. Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur & Anr." D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11861/2024 decided on 23.7.2024 and "Priyanka Tambole v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr." D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12479/2024 decided on 5.8.2024.
4. The operative portion of the order dated 5.8.2024 passed by this Court in the case of Priyanka Tambole (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"7. This is admitted at the Bar that the process of evaluation of OMR sheet is completely computerized and no manual interference is permissible. The petitioner herself has stated in the petition that she made a mistake insofar as darkening of the booklet series is concerned, though she has written the (Downloaded on 13/08/2024 at 08:34:19 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:32997-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-12739/2024] correct series in alphabet. Insofar as the decision in "Vashist Narayan Kumar" is concerned, the said decision was rendered in a different fact situation and it was not a case where the applicant had made a mistake in darkening the bubble in the OMR sheet. We have this also in our mind that in any examination process the decision of the examining body/academic regulator should not be interfered by this Courts in exercise of jurisdictional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if the decision so taken was applied uniformly to all the candidates."
5. Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of "State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. G.Hemalathaa & Anr." reported in (2020)19 SCC 430, observed that instructions issued are mandatory and have to be complied with, as strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the instructions is of paramount importance.
6. Keeping in view the aforequoted precedent law, no fault can be found in the action of the respondents in excluding the petitioner from the selection process. Even otherwise, no candidate can be granted relief if there was non-adherence of the instructions given in the OMR sheet, which are mandatory in nature.
7. In wake of above discussion, the present writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merit.
8. No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J Sr.No.9-/tarun goyal/ps (Downloaded on 13/08/2024 at 08:34:19 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)