Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. Since the respondent JPSC was aware of the instructions given in the admit card as well as on the back side of the OMR sheets, even then, the copy of Santosh Kumar Singh was evaluated. The petitioners' case is identical in nature and requires interference and there is no reason why their copies i.e. OMR answer sheets be not evaluated, as the examination was same. It is not a case of the respondents that out of negligence or illegality, copy of Santosh Kumar Singh has been evaluated, rather, they have justified the evaluation of OMR sheet.

9. The foundational fact that the OMR answer sheets of the two writ petitioners were not evaluated and were rejected by the computer on account of technical mistakes committed by them while darkening the circles due to which the computer did not recognize their roll numbers is not in dispute. The sole point for consideration is-

"Whether the learned writ court was justified in directing the appellants to evaluate the OMR Sheets of the writ petitioners despite such technical mistakes committed by them while darkening the circles due to which the computer could not recognize their roll numbers and consequently rejected their OMR Sheets?"

(d) ....................................."

17.In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the considered view that filling up OMR Sheets as per the given instructions was mandatory and such instructions have the force of law and errors committed by the candidates in filling up the circles of the digits of the roll number leading to rejection of such OMR Sheets would lead to rejection of candidature of such candidates and no mandamus can be issued to correct the OMR Sheets manually. Such OMR Sheets suffer from fatal defects and are not capable of being evaluated through the electronic device meant for examining such OMR Sheets. The writ petitioners who had committed errors in circling the digits of the roll numbers have to take responsibility and face the consequences of the rejection of their candidature as such OMR Sheets get rejected directly by the electronic device even if the roll numbers have been correctly written in handwriting in the OMR Sheets. Since the electronic device would not evaluate the OMR Sheets having errors in encircling the digits of the roll number, the only way to evaluate such OMR Sheets would be manual which is not permissible considering the scheme of the examination process. Such errors do not fall under the category where the OMR Sheets are evaluated by the electronic device but there are other discrepancies pointed out by the authorities.

18.In the aforesaid background, the matter of the candidate namely Santosh Kumar Singh is required to be considered which has been relied upon by the learned writ Court to grant relief to the writ petitioners.

19.So far as another candidate, namely, Santosh Kumar Singh is concerned, it was specifically pointed out by the appellants by filing a supplementary counter affidavit in the writ record that the OMR Sheet of Santosh Kumar Singh was never rejected by the OMR Scanning Machine as Santosh Kumar Singh had not written anything outside the demarcated area/guide mark of the OMR Sheet and thus, the Scanning Machine had evaluated the OMR Sheet of Santosh Kumar Singh. It was pointed out to the Court that Santosh Kumar Singh had written his roll number in the area specifically earmarked for the signature of the invigilator on account of which the OMR Scanning Machine did not reject the OMR Sheet of Santosh Kumar Singh. However, the objection raised by the appellants in connection with such writing of roll number by Santosh Kumar Singh was duly taken care of by the appellants and ultimately his result was declared. It was also pointed out that the OMR Sheet having been rejected by the machine cannot be evaluated as there is no procedure to evaluate the OMR Sheet manually.