Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18823 of 2021 Petitioner :- Anupam Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Srivastava,Alkeshwar Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aakash Rai
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Aakash Rai, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3.
2- This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondents no.2 to examine the OMR answer sheets of the petitioner relating to UPTGT Examination, 2016 held on 31.07.2021 and declare the result of the petitioner bearing roll number 0106054078, and consider her candidature in pursuance of advertisement no.01/2016 the respondent no.2 to examine the OMR sheets of the petitioner of UPTGT 2016, examination held on 31.07.2021 and consider their candidature in pursuance of advertisement no.01/2016.
3- It is argued by Sri Aakash Rai, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 that such kind of mistake could not be rectified. Time and again aforesaid controversy has been dealt with by large number of Single Judges and Division Benches of this Court. He also relied upon a judgement passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.26173 of 2018 (Rajesh Kumar Yadav and 20 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others) on 17.12.2018 wherein it has been held that if the instructions are properly read out as they are properly printed and the candidates commit mistake even while following the instructions, it would be a too much an interference in examination exercise.
4- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5- In Special Appeal No.90 of 2018 (Jai Karan Singh and 52 others v. State of U.P. and 4 others), a Division Bench of this Court observed as under :
"The error committed by the candidates cannot be said to be minor in nature. It is the Registration Number, Roll Number that determines identity of the candidates. The candidates who appeared in the examination were mature students and were to be appointed as Assistant Teachers in institution. They should have read the instructions that was issued time and again and should have correctly filled the entries relating to Roll Number, Registration Number, Question Booklet Series and Language attempted. The entries were, however inaccurately filled as a result of which the scanner has not been able to process the result. The learned Judge was, therefore, justified in dismissing the writ petitions. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed."
6- In Writ-A No.841 of 2018 (Kanchan Bala and 172 others v. State of U.P. and 4 others), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under :
"23. The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and found that clear instructions were given in the first page of question booklet directing the candidates to correctly fill up the OMR sheet and any error committed by the candidate cannot be corrected by the authority. The petitioners could not successfully mark the circle/bubble on the answer sheet showing correct registration number, roll number, booklet series or language-II attempted. Consequently, the result of the petitioners have been declared as invalid registration number/roll number. After the declaration of the result in question, they have proceeded to make a request that the correction is required. It is too late in the day to make such request by the petitioners, inasmuch as, OMR sheet is examined by the computer on the basis of columns that have been filled up by an incumbent and, in view of this, once final result has been declared and there is no provision to carry out any correction in the OMR sheet, then no relief can be accorded to the petitioners, especially keeping in view the dictum of Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Arti Verma Vs. State of U.P. & others and the judgment of learned Single Judge in Ritu Chauhan's case (supra), wherein once the Division Bench as well as learned Single Judge had already rejected the similar arguments as well as the claim set up by the candidates appeared in the TET-2013, 2016 and 2017, then there is no reason or occasion for this Court to take a different view in the matter.
24. The Court is also conscious that in the garb of minor discrepancy for rectifying such human error in the OMR sheet, the Court cannot give any liberty to the respondent to intervene in the matter at this stage, which would also have very serious consequence for the fairness of entire selection. Coupled with the above, I am clearly of the view that the action taken by the respondent is neither arbitrary nor illegal. In such circumstances, it is not legally permissible to interfere with the decision of the respondent."
7- In Karnataka Public Service Commission and others v.
B.M. Vijaya Shankar and others, AIR 1992 SC 952, this Court held that the Competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the Commission for public service in strict secrecy to get the best brain and that the instructions contained in the answer-sheet should be complied with in its letter and spirit. The relevant portion of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors. Vs. B. M. Vijaya Shankar and Ors., is reproduced below :
"Competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the Commission for public service in strict secrecy to get the best brain. Public interest requires no compromise on it. Any violation of it should be visited strictly. Absence of any expectation of hearing in matters which do not affect any interest and call for immediate action, such as the present one, where it would have delayed declaration of list of other candidates which would have been more unfair and unjust are rare but well recognised exceptions to the rule of natural justice. It cannot be equated with where a student is found copying in the examination or an inference arises against him for copying due to similarity in answers of number of other candidates or he is charged with misconduct or misbehavior. Direction not to write roll number was clear and explicit. It was printed on the first page of every answer book. Once it was violated the issue of bonafide and honest mistake did not arise. Its consequences, even, if not provided did not make any difference in law. The action could not be characterised as arbitrary. It was not denial of equal opportunity. The reverse may be true."
8- Similar view has also been taken by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.1452 of 2019 ( Km. Bandana v. State of U.P. and another), decided on 14.2.2019.
9- In view of the discussions made above, the error committed by the petitioner cannot be said to be minor in nature hence no relief could be granted to the petitioner.
10- Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021 Pramod Tripathi