Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1598 (RAJ)

NARENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2019-05-22

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the marks awarded to the petitioner in the written examination pertaining to the Constable Recruitment-2018. 2. It is submitted that pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.05.2018, the petitioner filled his online application form and appeared in the written test. The petitioner has also produced a copy of OMR sheet filled by the petitioner as Annex.4, however, the petitioner was not called for PST/PET. 3. In the cut-off declared by the respondents vide Annex.5 for district Baran, the cut-off in the petitioners category i.e. OBC was indicated as 46 and in the mark-sheet issued to the petitioner Annex.7, the petitioner was indicated as having secured 43.75 marks. 4. Based on the table produced as Annex.6 issued by the respondents, it is claimed that the petitioner is entitled to 55.25 marks and as such, the action of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the petitioner is not justified. 5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents, wherein it is indicated that the OMR sheet of the petitioner reveals that various answers given by the petitioner were not properly marked as per the instructions and till such time that the circle is filled to the extent of 1800 pixels, the image scanner cannot recognize the answer and due to the same, the answers attempted by the petitioner were not read and he was rightly awarded 43.75 marks. (It may be noticed at this stage that in reply to the grounds, it has been indicated that the petitioner secured 57.75 marks, which it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents is typographical mistake, in fact, the petitioner has secured 43.75 marks only.) 6. Reliance has been placed on judgment in Surendra Mirdha v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1801/2018, decided on 18.12.2018. 7. During course of the present writ petition, the original OMR sheet of the petitioner alongwith the details of the answers and the marking made by the system were called from the respondents. 8. A perusal thereof, indicated that the bubbles filled by the petitioner were not very clear and therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner was granted opportunity to make submissions. 9. 8. A perusal thereof, indicated that the bubbles filled by the petitioner were not very clear and therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner was granted opportunity to make submissions. 9. A rejoinder has been filed, wherein submissions has been made that several other bubbles have been filled by the petitioner, which are similar to the answers, which have not been read by the scanner and therefore, the plea raised by the respondents cannot be sustained. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. The stand of the respondents regarding the system having read the OMR sheet filled by the petitioner in a particular manner by perusal of the original OMR sheet, appears to be justified, inasmuch as, as already noticed herein-before, the manner in which the petitioner has filled the bubbles are not upto the mark. Once the system i.e. the image scanner, has read the OMR sheet in a particular manner, unless a glaring aspect after perusal of the OMR sheet and marks awarded is noticed, apparently there is no reason to interfere in the award of marks. 12. The Division Bench in the case of Surendra Mirdha (supra), in a similar nature matter observed as under:- "Upon perusal of the original OMR sheet of the appellant, in light of the explanation so furnished by the respondents, we are of the considered view that there is no error in awarding marks to the appellant, as he has failed to fill the OMR sheet properly. It is pertinent to note that not only in the notification for the recruitment, even on the website of the respondents and so also on the OMR sheet/answer sheet provided to the petitioner for filling answers; the candidates were cautioned to fill the same properly. The clause No. 8 of the instructions to the candidates, apart from containing clear stipulation in this regard, contains a pictorial depiction of the correct/incorrect way of darkening the circles. If the appellant has not darkened the circles properly, he himself is to be blamed. The respondents have adopted uniform criteria for all the candidates and as such no fault can be found in the marks awarded in the answer sheet of the appellant. We do not find any merit in the appellants appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed." 13. The respondents have adopted uniform criteria for all the candidates and as such no fault can be found in the marks awarded in the answer sheet of the appellant. We do not find any merit in the appellants appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed." 13. In view of the above fact situation, no interference is called for in the present writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.