Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 484 (ALL)

Ranjeet Kumar Yadav v. State of U. P.

2024-02-15

SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Seemant Singh, learned Advocate, S/Sri Sudeep Dwivedi, Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, Gautam Baghel, Shivendra Rajwal, Rohit Pandey and Ms. Taniya Pandey, learned Advocates for petitioners and S/Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare for applicants in application for impleadment and Ms. Archana Singh, learned Advocates for respondent- Basic Education Board and L.M. Singh, Ravi Prakash Srivastava, Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned Standing Counsel for State. 2. The petitioners before this Court in above referred bunch of writ petitions have participated in recruitment process on posts of Assistant Teachers commenced in pursuance of Government Order dated 19.02.2021. 3. It is the case of all petitioners that they have participated in the examination held on 17.02.2021 and result thereof was declared on 15.11.2021, wherein all petitioners have qualified. 4. It is further case of petitioners that on basis of certain Government Orders, the Regulatory Authority published a new fresh/amended result on 06.09.2022 after earlier result was cancelled. All the petitioners were not found in fresh/subsequent select list and their result status was shown as “Invalid Subject Shift -1”. The petitioners have challenged the fresh result dated 06.09.2022 by way of filing above bunch of writ petitions. 5. It is further case of petitioners that fresh result was issued in pursuance to Government Orders dated 08.06.2022 and 30.08.2022, however, at the time of filing of writ petitions, these Government Orders were not available. It is further case of petitioners that aforesaid Government Orders were filed later on by respondent by way of filing a counter affidavit. For reference, the aforesaid Government Orders are reproduced hereinafter :- It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to an advertisement for the post of Assistant Tenchers Junior Aided Examination Issued by Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Prayngraj, petitioner eligible applied for being considered for appointment. According to the petitioner, as per the carbon copy of OMR Sheet of the Petitioner, he would secure 101 marks in General Category, whereas the cut off marks for the General Category is 97 marks, accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner would secure more marks than the cut of marks. It is submitted that the petitioner has been wrongly shown as ‘failed’ in the qualifying examination. Learned Standing Counsel may seek instructions in the matter. HINDI IMAGE 6. Learned counsel for petitioners have argued at length. It is submitted that the petitioner has been wrongly shown as ‘failed’ in the qualifying examination. Learned Standing Counsel may seek instructions in the matter. HINDI IMAGE 6. Learned counsel for petitioners have argued at length. They submitted that initially, when first result was issued, no defect in their respective OMR sheets was found i.e. the computer system has read the bubbles filled by respective petitioners and proceeded further to read the answers marked in respective OMR sheets and their result was declared. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that no reason was assigned, why subsequently same computer system has pointed out the error of subject shift. Some of the OMR sheets were placed on record in order to appreciate above submission. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that there were specific important instructions published in the question booklet itself as how to fill the bubbles. The scanned copy of important instructions of a specimen copy is pasted hereinbelow:- 9. A further instruction along with specimen OMR is also pasted hereinafter:- 10. Learned counsel for respondent further submitted that petitioners have not correctly filled the bubbles mentioned below the part 2 i.e. subject attempted, wherein there are bubbles in front of Sanskrit, Hindi, English, Social Studies, Science/Math etc. The petitioners have to completely fill up bubbles in front of single subject to indicate that they have attempted question from serial No. 51 to 155 of said subject only. The first 1 to 50 questions are for General knowledge i.e. part 1, mandatory for each candidate. Correct and incorrect methods for darking circle/bubble on the OMR answer sheet was specifically provided in instructions. Use of eraser, nail, blade, white fluid/whitener etc., to smudge, scratch, damage in any manner on the OMR answer sheet was strictly prohibited. 11. In order to scrutinize the rival submissions, I have carefully perused the writ petitions, however, in few writ petitions i.e., Writ Nos. 17871 of 2022, 17246 of 2022, 17212 of 2022, 16677 of 2022, 16508 of 2022, 15547 of 2022, and 11585 of 2022, it was declared that they have filed respective photocopies of OMR sheet. In order to appreciate, following chart is prepared to show that whether any error is visible with naked eyes in filling/darkening of bubble on OMR sheet:- (i) Writ Petition No.15547 of 2022 Photo Copy of OMR sheet is at page 50. In order to appreciate, following chart is prepared to show that whether any error is visible with naked eyes in filling/darkening of bubble on OMR sheet:- (i) Writ Petition No.15547 of 2022 Photo Copy of OMR sheet is at page 50. It appears that bubble is filled against Social Studies in part 2 subject attempted and there is rubbing or partial filling of bubbles against Hindi also. Remarks: Since two bubbles were filled completely or partially, therefore, the computer system has rightly rejected. The copy of said OMR is pasted hereinbelow : (ii) Writ Petition No.16508 of 2022 Photo Copy of OMR sheet is at page 54. It appears that bubble against Social Studies is half filled in part 2 subject attempted which is not as per the instruction, therefore, computer system has rightly rejected the OMR. The copy of said OMR is pasted hereinbelow : (iii) Writ Petition No.16671 of 2022 Photocopy of OMR sheet is at page 24. Bubble against subject Hindi is half filled in part 2 subject attempted, therefore, the computer system has rightly not proceeded further. The copy of said OMR is pasted hereinbelow : (iv) Writ petition No.17212 of 2022 Photocopy of OMR sheet is at page 18. The bubble against subject Sanskrit is half filled in part 2 subject attempted, therefore, the computer system has rightly not proceeded further. The copy of said OMR is pasted hereinbelow : (v) Writ petition No.17246 of 2022 In this petition, 3 OMR sheets are annexed at page 51, 52 and 53, however, in each OMR two bubbles are filled in part 2 subject attempted, which was against the instruction, therefore, there is no error that computer system has not read the OMR sheets. The copy of said OMR sheets are pasted hereinbelow : (vi) Writ petition No.17871 of 2022 Photocopy of OMR sheet is at page 38, however, the photocopy of OMR is very dim/blurr, therefore, it could not be identified which bubble has rightly filled or not. The copy of said OMR is pasted hereinbelow : (vii) Writ petition No.11585 of 2022 Photo Copy of OMR sheet is at page 24. It appears that two half bubbles are filled i.e. against subject hindi and social studies, therefore, the computer system has rightly not proceeded. The copy of said OMR is pasted hereinbelow : 12. The copy of said OMR is pasted hereinbelow : (vii) Writ petition No.11585 of 2022 Photo Copy of OMR sheet is at page 24. It appears that two half bubbles are filled i.e. against subject hindi and social studies, therefore, the computer system has rightly not proceeded. The copy of said OMR is pasted hereinbelow : 12. The petitioners have heavily relied upon a submission that since in initial result no error was detected in regard to filling of bubbles of subject attempted, therefore, there was no reason that their OMR sheets were not examined during subsequent/fresh evaluation, however, in this regard, this Court is of the considered opinion that instructions as referred above mentioned in examination booklet were very clear that they have to fill only one bubble completely against the subject of which they have attempted for question No. 51 to 150, but as referred instructions were not followed and circle/bubble were filled by incorrect method 13. Out of number of petitioners, only few have filed their photocopy of OMR sheets and as referred above, in each of OMR sheets, either two bubbles were filled completely or two bubbles were filled partially or out of two bubbles filled, one bubble was filled completely and other partially as well as though only one bubble was filled but not completely as required in inspection. There is a case of rubbing also. This was against the specific instructions and, therefore, there is no legal error in the subsequent checking by the computer system, that computer system has not proceeded to evaluate those OMR. In result, candidature was rejected on ground of ‘Subject Shift’. 14. A fair procedure of selection process is a soul of any selection process and for that correct filling of OMR sheet and details thereon according to instructions is also part of fairness. The petitioners have not filled bubbles correctly against the subject, as referred from the OMR sheet being part of this order and they have also failed to show this Court that their case were contrary i.e. despite they have filled bubbles strictly in accordance with instructions still the computer system has wrongly proceeded not to examine their OMR and result could not be declared being ‘subject shift’. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, the subsequent result was declared after curing the earlier errors to maintain the fairness of examination. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, the subsequent result was declared after curing the earlier errors to maintain the fairness of examination. Petitioner has failed to point out any error in process of subsequent checking of OMR for subsequent result. Number of petitioners have not filed photocopy of their respective OMR sheet and may be a reason for that they know that instructions were not completely followed. The petitioners have failed to point out any legal error in subsequent verifying/checking of answer sheet in order to maintain fairness of examination. The outcome of above discussion would be that I do not find any error in the impugned order, therefore, all writ petitions are dismissed.