Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 92 (MP)

Dip v. Secretary, M. P. P. S. C.

2021-02-02

VIVEK RUSIA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Vivek Rusia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission. 2. Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the rejection of his representation dated 25.08.2020 by the respondents vide reply dated 04.09.2020. 3. Facts of the case in short are as under: Petitioner is a permanent resident of district Satna. He is physically disabled person. M.P.P.S.C. conducted a State Civil Services Examination, 2019 in which the petitioner submitted a form. The preliminary examination was scheduled on 12.01.2020 in which petitioner appeared with roll No. 109359 centre at Indore. The petitioner appeared in both the papers and the M.P.P.S.C. published an answer sheet on 29.06.2020 in which in paper-II the petitioner's marks have been shown as set blank. The petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure P/6. Vide impugned letter dated 04.09.2020 the respondents have rejected the representation relying on clause 7 of Annexure-G of the advertisement, hence the present petition before this Court. 4. According to the petitioner he appeared in the paper-II i.e. general aptitude test and he answered all the questions but inadvertently in the column of question booklet set he has failed to fill the circle in respect of the booklet supplied to him. According to him the booklet set-D was supplied to him and he has correctly answer the questions but the respondent has wrongly rejected his representation. 5. M.P.P.S.C. filed the reply opposing the aforesaid relief by submitting that the advertisement No. 3/19 was published on 14.11.2019 on the website of PSC for filling 330 posts in the State services. The preliminary examination was conducted on 12.01.2020 in which the petitioner as well as other candidates appeared. In the advertisement dated 14.11.2019 at note No. 5 it is specifically mentioned that before answering the question the candidate must ensure that all the entries are duly filled in the OMR sheet and if the candidate fails to mark the ABCD booklet in the OMR sheet then the OMR sheets shall not be valued. In the admit card and answer sheet also the similar directions were given. Not only the petitioner as many as 24 candidates committed the same mistake and in all 24 cases representations have been rejected. In the admit card and answer sheet also the similar directions were given. Not only the petitioner as many as 24 candidates committed the same mistake and in all 24 cases representations have been rejected. In view of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajendra Patel vs. State of U.P reported in AIR 2015 Allahabad 161 Full Bench the terms and conditions made in the advertisement are mandatory in nature, hence no direction can be given to deviate from the said terms and conditions, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner has failed to mention in the OMR sheet about the question booklet set supplied to him. According to him he was provided D question booklet set but inadvertently he has failed to fill the circle in front of D. In the advertisement it has specifically been mentioned that before answering the questions the candidates must ensure that he has filled all the entries in the OMR sheet. The relevant clause 7(b) of Annexure-G is reproduced below: 7- vks-,e-vkj- 'khV ij mRrj vadu ds fy;s & lkekU; funsZ'k & ¼v½ XXX XXX XXX ¼c½ vks-,e-vkj- 'khV ds lkeus ds i`"B ij viuk uke] vuqØekad] ijh{kk frfFk] Á'ui= dksM vkfn Hkjus ds fy;s cus [kkuksa esa Áfof"V ds fy;s dkys cky isu dk mi;ksx djsaA Á'u i= ,] ch] lh] Mh lsV esa ls dksbZ ,d gh lsV fn;k tk;sxkA vius lsV dk dksM Øekad lko/kkuh ls fu;r LFkku ij Hkjsa ,oa lsV ds xksys dks dkys isu ls dkyk djsaA 8. In the OMR sheet also a note is appended that if the candidate does not fill the question booklet set circle shall be disqualified, therefore, the respondents/MPPSC has rightly did not check the OMR sheet of paper-II as the petitioner has failed to mention the question of booklet supplied to him. The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of State Civil Services which is a Class-I post and this type of negligence is not acceptable while giving the examination. The conditions of the advertisement are mandatory. The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of State Civil Services which is a Class-I post and this type of negligence is not acceptable while giving the examination. The conditions of the advertisement are mandatory. There is no question of any discrimination as the similar type of mistake was committed by 14 candidates and in all cases the MPPSC has rejected the answer sheets. Hence, no interference is called for in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.