Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1994 (JHR)

Prabhat Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-20

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2017
ORDER : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to declare the petitioner as a successful candidate in the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short "JPSC"), Combined Civil Service Preliminary Examination (P.T.). 2016 as he got 232 marks, which is higher than that of the last successful candidate. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the JPSC issued an Advertisement No. 23 of 2016 for Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination (P.T.), 2016 thereby inviting applications from such candidates, who are interested and eligible for the same. Pursuant to the Advertisement No. 23 of 2016, the petitioner applied and appeared in the Preliminary Test examination, which was held on 18.12.2016. The respondent-JPSC declared the result of preliminary examination on 23.2.2017 and the same was uploaded in the official website of the JPSC but the name of the petitioner did not find place in the list of successful candidates. The petitioner examined his Optical Marked Recognition (OMR) sheet from the official website of the respondents and found that in the roll number column, one horizontal line has been drawn and that could be one of the reasons for the rejection of the OMR sheet of the petitioner. In the answer sheet details of the petitioner, the result has been shown as rejected and the reason has been assigned as "rejection of OMR sheet due to any of the reasons mentioned below:-- (i) Wrong bubbling of roll No. or booklet series in the OMR Sheet; or (ii) Not bubbling of roll No. or booklet series in the OMR sheet; or (iii) Multiple bubbling of roll No. or booklet series in the OMR sheet; or (iv) Booklet series not matching with relevant entry in attendance sheet; or (v) Absent in any of the paper either paper-I or paper-II When no cogent reason for rejection was given to the petitioner, he filed representation before the respondent-JPSC on 31.3.2017 but the respondent neither assigned any reason for the same nor declared the result of the petitioner amongst the successful candidates, which gives rise to filing of the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that none of the faults mentioned in the rejection list has been committed by the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that none of the faults mentioned in the rejection list has been committed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not drawn any line on the OMR sheet and as such, the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer for such fault, which has not been committed by him. It is also submitted that the petitioner has got 232 marks in the preliminary examination, which is higher than the last selected candidate and as such his result should be declared. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-JPSC submits that the OMR sheets of the candidates were to be evaluated through the OMR scanning machine and as such in the admit card itself it was instructed that the incomplete/incorrect filling/shadowing of the bubbles on OMR answer sheet will be the sole responsibility of the candidate. It is further submitted that in the OMR sheet of General Studies-II, the petitioner did not properly shadow the bubbles of roll number column and there is one straight line drawn on the OMR sheet due to which the answer sheet of General Studies Paper-II of the petitioner could not be scanned by the OMR scanning machine and as such the same was rejected. It is also submitted that the OMR Sheet of the petitioner was rejected due to the mistake committed by the petitioner himself and as such the writ petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC put reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in L.P.A. No. 144 of 2014 (Ajit Kumar Gope & Ors. vs. Chairman, JPSC & Anr.) and W.P.S. No. 5803 of 2016 wherein the prayer of the petitioners for declaring their result in spite of the discrepancies in the OMR sheet was rejected. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the JPSC produced the OMR answer sheets related to General Studies Paper-I and Paper-II of the petitioner in a sealed cover. I have perused both the OMR sheets in original. In General Studies Paper-II, there appears to be a line drawn over the bubbles in the 5th Column meant for shadowing the bubbles of roll number. I have perused both the OMR sheets in original. In General Studies Paper-II, there appears to be a line drawn over the bubbles in the 5th Column meant for shadowing the bubbles of roll number. After perusal of the OMR sheets, the same have been put back in the sealed cover and returned to the learned counsel for the JPSC. 6. The petitioner appeared in the JPSC Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination (P.T.)-2016 but his result was not declared by the respondent-JPSC stating that in the OMR sheet of General Studies Paper-II, the bubbles meant for roll number column have not been shadowed properly and there is also a straight line drawn in the OMR sheet due to which the OMR sheet could not be scanned by the OMR scanning machine. The petitioner has contended that he has not put any line on his OMR sheet and the same has been rejected without any fault on his part. 7. I have perused the judgments relied upon by the respondent-JPSC. In L.P.A. No. 144 of 2014 (Ajit Kumar Gope & Ors. vs. The Chairman and Anr.), the appellants had not shadowed the bubbles against the subject code due to which the OMR sheets of the appellants were rejected. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court rejected the prayer of the appellants for issuance of direction upon the respondent JPSC to evaluate their OMR sheets. The said order of the Hon'ble Division Bench has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 9.6.2014 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14798 of 2014. In another judgment, a Single Bench of this Court in W.P.S. No. 5803 of 2016 (Mishra Somesh Kumar Shiv Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner for evaluation of his OMR sheet in a case where he had darkened/shadowed the bubbles meant for the Centre Code wrongly. 8. I have also perused the instructions given in the Admit Card of the petitioner. Column No. 3 under the heading of "Instruction for candidates" is relevant for consideration of the present case and as such the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "3. OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) answer sheet will be processed electronically as such invalidation of answer sheet due to incomplete/incorrect filling/shadowing of the bubbles of OMR answer sheet, will be the sole responsibility of the candidate. OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) answer sheet will be processed electronically as such invalidation of answer sheet due to incomplete/incorrect filling/shadowing of the bubbles of OMR answer sheet, will be the sole responsibility of the candidate. OMR Scanning machine will reject OMR sheet in which Roll No. and Booklet series are not properly and correctly shadowed which shall result in cancellation of candidature." 9. By way of the above instruction, the petitioner was clearly instructed that OMR machine will reject OMR sheet if the roll number and Booklet series are not properly and correctly shadowed. It was further instructed that invalidation of answer sheet due to incomplete/incorrect filling/shadowing of the bubbles of the OMR answer sheet will be the sole responsibility of the candidate. The respondent-JPSC has assigned the reason for rejection of the OMR sheet of the petitioner that he has not properly shadowed the bubbles of the roll number column and there is one straight line drawn over the bubbles due to which the answer sheet of the General Studies Paper-II of the petitioner could not be scanned by the OMR scanning machine. Though, the petitioner has denied that he has not put any line on the OMR sheet, yet, as per the instruction on the Admit Card, the responsibility for the same can only be attributed to him. Apart from the line drawn over the OMR sheet, the bubbles of roll number column were also found not properly shadowed which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. Clear instructions were provided to the candidates that the answer sheet would be electronically processed and as such any prayer for issuance of direction for examination of the answer sheet of the petitioner manually cannot be issued to the respondent-JPSC. It has already been observed in the order dated 9.1.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5803 of 2016 that since the entire system of evaluation of OMR Sheet is fully computerized, no manual interference is permitted for the purpose of evaluation. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 55 of 2017 (Mishra Somesh Kumar Shiv Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) vide order dated 20.9.2017 also held as under: "In view of this condition, candidates are bound to be accurate. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 55 of 2017 (Mishra Somesh Kumar Shiv Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) vide order dated 20.9.2017 also held as under: "In view of this condition, candidates are bound to be accurate. This Court cannot allow their lethargic approach; otherwise, there will be several candidates, who have committed error, will come to the Court and all the answer sheets are to be verified/checked/processed manually." 10. It is the prime duty of a candidate, who is appearing in any examination, that the OMR sheet has been filled up as per the instructions and if the candidate makes any fault, no direction can be issued by the writ court in favour of such candidate. If the prayer of the petitioner is allowed, it would open Pandora box for several candidates taking one or the other ground seeking intervention of the writ court which would nullify the specific instructions mentioned in the Admit Card. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the present writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.