Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1161 (MP)

Ritu Agrawal v. Secretery, Union of India

2012-11-07

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.11.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short, the Tribunal) in Original Application No.949/2012. 3. The petitioner had filed the aforesaid O.A. before the Tribunal seeking direction to the respondents to declare the marks obtained by her in respect to first paper - Quantitative Ability of Tier-II of Combined Graduate Level Exam. 2012 and to allow her to appear in the interview for further selection process on merits. 4. The petitioner was awarded Zero mark on account of her failure of mentioning her “Test Form No.” in the answer sheet. 5. The Tribunal has exhaustively dealt with the matter and keeping in view the specific instructions notified to the candidates mentioning that the candidate should right and code his/her name, Roll Number, Ticket Number, Name of the Examination etc. as mentioned in Admission Certificate, Date of birth and Test Form Number fully and correctly in the relevant places in OMR Answer Sheet and further that answer sheet not bearing candidate’s Name, Roll Number, Test Form Number, Tiket Number and signature and improper/incomplete coding of these details will not be evaluated and “Zero” marks will be awarded to them, declined to interference in the matter. It was also made clear that the presence of such mistake would be considered prima facie as attempt to commit malpractice in the examination or to impersonate. The candidates were specifically advised to follow these instructions meticulously and also duly and fully coded in the appropriate places. 6. Having considered the aforesaid, the Tribunal was of the view that the respondents had committed no error in awarding zero marks to the petitioner. It has also been found by the Tribunal that as per web site of SSC, total 1529 cases of zero marking in Paper-I, 1483 cases in Paper-II and 190 cases in Paper-III were there on account of such omission in the answer sheets. 7. Taking into consideration that all similarly placed candidates have been treated similarly and admittedly there was a mistake of non-mentioning of Test Form No., which was the necessary requirement as per the general instructions, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal is perfectly justified and no case for interference is made out. 8. 7. Taking into consideration that all similarly placed candidates have been treated similarly and admittedly there was a mistake of non-mentioning of Test Form No., which was the necessary requirement as per the general instructions, we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal is perfectly justified and no case for interference is made out. 8. The petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and others ( AIR 2004 SC 5043 ), a judgment of Madras High Court in the case of State of T.N. and others vs. M. Anita Selva Zavier and another (AIR 1997 Madras 168), a judgment of this Court in the case of Rachana Mehra vs. Professional Examination Board ( 1989 MPLJ 702 ) and in the case of Ku. Sapna Alia vs. Vyavasaik Pariksha Mandal ( 1993 MPLJ 312 ). However on going through the said judgments we find that they have no application to the facts of the present case. 9. As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.