Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners applied for U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test -2017 through on-line application and appeared in the examination conducted by the third respondent i.e. Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Allahabad on the schedule date, time and place but due to human error/mistake, they could not successfully mark the circle/bubble in the OMR sheets showing correct registration number, roll number, booklet series or language-II attempted. Therefore, the result of the petitioners have been declared as invalid registration number/roll number. He further submitted that the petitioners at the time of applying and submitting their application forms, had clearly mentioned the attempted language and other details but at the time of attempting the question, they could not mark the bubble of correct registration number, roll number, booklet series or language-II attempted and the same was not deliberate. It occurred due to mistake, therefore, the petitioners have prayed for declaring their result after evaluating the O.M.R. answer-sheet of petitioners by the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P.

7. Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate further submitted on the basis of averments contained in the writ petitions that most of the petitioners secured more than the cut of marks and they are entitled to be declared qualified in the examination in their respective categories. The result of the examination was declared on 15.12.2017 in which it has been shown that the OMR sheet of each of the petitioners had been treated to be invalid on the grounds of invalid registration number/roll number, invalid booklet series, & invalid language column and the OMR sheets of the petitioners have not been evaluated. It has also been claimed that candidatures of 99 petitioners were rejected on the ground of invalid registration number/roll number and only in few cases the candidatures have been rejected on the ground of invalid booklet series and invalid language-II. He submitted that so far as the TET examination is concerned, the same is merely qualifying in nature for being considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher and it is not a competitive examination. No person is going to be affected in any manner in case the OMR sheets of the petitioners are evaluated and their results are declared afresh. It has also been argued that most of the petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Mitras and finally absorbed as Assistant Teachers but eventually their appointments were quashed by the Division Bench of this Court and the same was upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court but while deciding the matter relating to Shiksha Mitra Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed that the incumbents are entitled for preferential marks on the basis of their working as Shiksha Mitra for selection as Assistant Teachers. In case the result of the petitioners is not declared, for all practical purposes their one chance stands exhausted due to human error. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that the error was not deliberate and being human error the petitioners may be permitted to mark blank column of the OMR sheets or whatever errors/discrepancies occurred in the OMR sheets, it may be condoned, and the OMR sheet of the petitioners may be reevaluated. He has also referred to the guidelines which refer the responsibility of the class invigilator to ensure filling up all the columns by the individual candidate in accordance with the specification contained in the admit card as well as in the instructions. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Price Waterhoue Coopers Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-I and another1. Relevant paras 14 and 15 are reproduced herein below:-

15. The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It appears to us that all that has happened in the present case is that through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. This can only be described as a human error which we are all prone to make. The calibre and expertise of the assessee has little or nothing to do with the inadvertent error. That the assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted, but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income."

"If prospective teacher can not even correctly fill up the simple on line application form for his employment, it is obvious what he is going to teach if appointed. There are certain decisions cited on this issue. But none of them deal with this aspect whether under the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India such incompetent persons should be allowed to play with the future of the next generation."

In the facts of the case at hand, petitioner has not filled the column "language attempted" in the OMR sheet, large number of students have taken the examination, it is not practical and advisable that each OMR sheet, which is to be examined by a computer, to be checked by the examiners whether the columns of the OMR sheet has been correctly marked. The omission to fill up the OMR sheet correctly is not a human error but reflects lack of alertness and casual approach of the petitioner in following the instructions. The error is of such a nature which cannot be permitted to be corrected by the authorities.