Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 600 (JHR)

Ashish Kumar Bharti v. State of Jharkhand

2016-04-12

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, VIRENDER SINGH

body2016
ORDER : Aggrieved by order dated 09.07.2015 in W.P.(S) No. 2461 of 2015 whereby, the prayer seeking a direction upon the respondent-State to include the name of the petitioners in the merit list prepared by the Jharkhand Academic Council for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) was rejected, the appellant-writ petitioners have preferred the instant Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants submits that the result of the appellants which was uploaded on website discloses that the appellants secured more marks than the cutoff marks and the candidates who have secured lesser marks than the appellants though, have been recommended for appointment by the Jharkhand Academic Council, the candidature of the appellants was rejected on the technical plea that the bubble in OMR answer-sheet was either not darkened (filled up) or wrongly darkened. It is contended that since the hand written roll number reflected on OMR answer-sheet of both the appellants is correct, on a hyper-technical ground, the claim of the meritorious candidates such like the appellants cannot be given a go-bye. 4. Mr. Md. Sohail Anwar, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent Jharkhand Academic Council submits that evaluation of Paper-II written by the appellants was a mistake committed by the Council. The appellants who have failed to obtain the minimum qualifying marks in Paper-I cannot base their claim on the marks obtained by them in Paper-II. Referring to Clause (cha) of Advertisement no. 93 of 2011, the learned Senior counsel submits that only when a candidate is found successful in Paper-I, the Council was required to assess Paper-II. 5. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary to notice relevant stipulations in Advertisement No. 93 of 2011. Clause (cha) of the said Advertisement reads as under : (cha) The direct appointment of teachers against the above vacant posts shall be done by the Director, Secondary Education from the merit list prepared on the basis of written examination conducted by the council. For preparation of merit list, written examination shall be conducted as under: Question Paper-I: Examination of General Knowledge, Hindi and English Language 100 marks (Qualifying paper). Question Paper-II: Examination of concerned subject300 marks. For preparation of merit list, written examination shall be conducted as under: Question Paper-I: Examination of General Knowledge, Hindi and English Language 100 marks (Qualifying paper). Question Paper-II: Examination of concerned subject300 marks. Question Paper-I: It shall be qualifying in nature i.e., it shall be essential to get minimum Thirty-three (33) as pass mark. But the marks obtained in this question paper shall not be included in the preparation of merit list. This question paper shall be of objective and multiple choices. Question Paper-II: The question shall be of description of graduate level from the concerned subject in which appointment is to be made and subject-wise merit list shall be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in this paper. Such candidates who do not get minimum qualifying marks in question paper-I, evaluation of answer sheets of Paper-II shall not be done. The minimum cutoff marks for the question paper-II shall be 50 percent. The relaxation of five (5) percent shall be admissible to the candidate belonging to scheduled caste/scheduled tribe in the prescribed qualifying cutoff marks. ¼p½ mi;qZDr fjDr inksa ds fo:) f'k{kdksa dh lh/kh fu;qfDr ifj"kn~ }kjk vk;ksftr fyf[kr ijh{kk ds vk/kkj ij rS;kj dh x;h es?kk lwph ls funsZ'kd] ek/;fed f'k{kk }kjk dh tk;sxhA es?kk lwph rS;kj djus gsrq fyf[kr ijh{kk dk vk;kstu fuEuor~ gksxk%& iz'u i=&1& lkekU; Kku] fgUnh rFkk vaxzsth Hkk"kk dh ijh{kk&100 vad ¼vgZd iz'u i=½ iz'u i=&2& lEcfU/kr fo"k; dh ijh{kk&300 vad iz'u i=&1& vgZd iz'u i= gksxk vFkkZr blesa ek= U;wure mRrh.kkZa rSarhl vad ¼33½ izkIr djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA ijUrq es?kk lwph ds fuekZ.k gsrq bl iz'u i= ds izkIrkadks dks lfEefyr ugha fd;k tk;sxkA bl iz'u i= esa oLrqfu"B ,oa cgqfodYih; iz'u iwNs tk;saxsaA iz'u i=&2& esa lEcfU/kr fo"k; ftlesa fu;qfDr dh tkuh gS] ds Lukkrd Lrjh; fo"k;fu"B izdkj ds iz'u iwNs tk;saxs rFkk fo"k;okj es?kk lwph bl iz'u i= ds izkIrkadks ds vk/kkj ij cuk;h tk;sxhA ,slh vH;FkhZ tks iz'u i=&1 esa U;wUre mRrh.kkaZd izkIr ugha dj ldsaxs muds iz'u i=&2 ds mRrj iqfLrdkvksa dk ewY;kadu ugha fd;k tk;sxkA iz'u i=&2 dk U;wUkre mRrh.kkZad ¼dV vkWZQ ekDlZ½ 50 izfr'kr gksxkA vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuwlwfpr tutkfr ds mEehnokjksa dks mRrh.kZrk ds fy, fu/kkZfjr dV vkWQ ekDlZ esa ¼ikaWp½ 5 izfr'kr dh NwV vuqekU; gksxhA 6. The appellants have brought on record a copy of the instructions attached to the question booklet for recruitment for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers. 7. The appellants have brought on record a copy of the instructions attached to the question booklet for recruitment for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers. 7. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants have correctly followed the Instructions attached to the question booklet and the roll number written by them in numericals is their correct roll number. However, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent Jharkhand Academic Council disputing the said plea contended that Instruction no. 2 on the question booklet cautioned the candidates to fill the relevant fields in OMR answer-sheet correctly. The OMR answer-sheets also contained instructions for marking OMR answer-sheet and the method of filling up the circles correctly was also displayed on the OMR answer-sheet. 8. The respondent-Jharkhand Academic Council has taken a stand that the appellant no. 1 incorrectly marked the last digit of his roll number whereas, the appellant no. 2 has not marked one of the digits in his roll number. Consequently, the OMR answer-sheet of the appellants for Paper-I were not assessed by the computerized system which reads the OMR answer-sheets. 9. Since the appellants' Paper-I was not evaluated, in terms of stipulation under Clause (cha) of the Advertisement, the Jharkhand Academic Council was not required to assess their Paper-II. May be, Paper-II of the appellants was evaluated by the respondents and marks obtained by them were also uploaded on the website however, considering the fact that the appellants did not qualify in Paper-I, they cannot claim appointment on the basis of marks obtained by them in Paper-II. The specific Clause in the Advertisement makes it mandatory to qualify Paper-I and since the appellant-writ petitioners have failed to qualify in the said paper, any mistake committed by the Jharkhand Academic Council would not clothe them with a right to claim appointment on the basis of the marks obtained by them in Paper-II. 10. A bonafide mistake does not confer a right on any party and it can be corrected at any time once it is detected. In “Union of India & Anr. vs. Narendra Singh” reported in (2008) 2 SCC 750 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, “It is true that the mistake was of the Department and the respondent was promoted though, he was not eligible and qualified. But, we cannot countenance the submission of the respondent that the mistake cannot be corrected. In “Union of India & Anr. vs. Narendra Singh” reported in (2008) 2 SCC 750 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, “It is true that the mistake was of the Department and the respondent was promoted though, he was not eligible and qualified. But, we cannot countenance the submission of the respondent that the mistake cannot be corrected. Mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due process of law.” 11. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussions, the net result is that, the instant matter does not warrant interference of this Court and resultantly, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.