Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 280 (JHR)

Jitendra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2016-02-08

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2016
Order : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Representation of the petitioners made before the Chairman, J.A.C, Ranchi, pursuant to the liberty granted in W.P.(C) no. 143 of 214 (Annexure-3) judgment dated 3rd February, 2014 has been rejected by the impugned reasoned order at Annexure-5 dated 3rd March, 2104 by respondent no. 3, Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi. On consideration of their claims, the respondent no. 3 has found that each of these petitioners did not correctly darken on OMR sheet relating to their roll number in case of 4 petitioners and in relation to booklet series in case of petitioner no. 2. 3. 74658 students have participated in T.E.T Exam which was conducted through computerized evaluation system where computer could evaluate only those OMR sheets which were filled up or darkened in proper manner as per instruction. Petitioners have assailed the rejection on the grounds that the incorrect darkening of Roll number/Booklet series in OMR sheet should not operate as a technical ground for non-evaluation of their answer-sheet. 4. Counsel for the Respondent-J.A.C submits that the evaluation being a computerized system, it has been uniformly followed and all such applications suffering from such incorrect filling of OMR sheet or wrong darkening of relevant circle of OMR sheet relating to essential entries of Roll number/booklet series etc. have been rejected at the threshold by the computer. Similar challenge made in W.P.(C) No. 1593 of 2014 rendered in the case of Ramesh Kumar Pandey vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., has been negatived by this court. 5. Considering the submission of the parties, no exception can be made in such circumstances to the case of the petitioners when they have been found to have incorrectly filled up the circles or incorrectly darkened the circle of OMR sheet which were to be evaluated through the computerized system. 6. In such circumstances, petitioners have failed to make out a case for interference, such claims on the same grounds earlier also declined in the case of Ramesh Kumar Pandey (Supra) by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.