Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"21. That the communication dated 19th September, 2015 shows that around 134 candidates have not indicated the number of Question Booklet Code on the OMR Sheet, 02 candidates have not indicated their Roll Number in the OMR Sheet and the Roll Number of 04 candidates were found to be duplicated. The communication dated 19th September 2015 also mentions that instructions issued by the Board / Police Department specifically mentioned that the unfilled OMR Sheets will not be evaluated. It was further mentioned that though the candidates as well as the Room Incharge have signed on the OMR Sheets, however, both have not checked the entries on the OMR Sheets."

54. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the communication dated 19.09.2015 required the Police Headquarters to remove the discrepancies in the OMR Sheets within a period of two days and to provide the same. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the Police Headquarters issued communication to all the subordinate authorities for removal of discrepancies in the OMR Sheets and they were removed within 24 hours and were submitted to the Board, which, on 23.09.2015 issued the result. It is specifically averred in the writ petition that result of the 140 candidates, whose OMR Sheets were found to be incomplete by the Board, was also declared after removal of discrepancies and they were permitted to appear for the physical test. This is alleged to be beyond their competence and it creates doubt about the intention of the Selection Committee and the selection is not conducted in a free and impartial manner.

55. In the counter affidavit, which was filed in the writ petition, in fact it was not disputed that, in respect of 140 candidates, they were permitted to rectify the OMR Sheets. It is stated that 134 candidates had not filled the question paper code on Set A, Set B, Set C and Set D; 02 candidates had not mentioned their roll numbers on the OMR Sheets; and 04 candidates had mentioned their duplicate roll numbers on the OMR Sheets.

56. The learned Single Judge, in fact, found that this procedure adopted could not be countenanced; but, noting that only 8 candidates out of the 140 candidates, who were permitted to correct the OMR Sheets, had become successful, the learned Single Judge directed that the said 8 candidates be not considered.

60. Accordingly, Special Appeal No. 608 of 2015 will stand dismissed.

61. As far as Special Appeal No. 13 of 2016 is concerned, the same has been filed by one of the 8 candidates mentioned hereinbefore forming part of the 140 candidates, who were permitted to correct the OMR Sheets.

62. Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel for the appellant would, no doubt, contend that no opportunity was given to the appellant to defend himself and that the appellant was declared successful in the written examination. It is also stated that the affected persons were not made parties. It is the case of the appellant that there is no manipulation in the examination. It is stated that the appellant had filled the OMR Sheet cautiously, he had also endorsed the paper book code as D in the OMR Sheet; but, inadvertently, he could not mark it in circle. The said mistake is described in the appeal as a very small mistake and the Board sought guidance from the Police Headquarters to rectify the defect; the Police Headquarters passed on the paper book code to the appellant and other similarly situated persons; and provided it to the Board and, on the basis of the communication, the result was declared, wherein the appellant was selected.