Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24535 of 2017 Petitioner :- Vipin Kumar Tiwari And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Othrs.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Pandey,Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Singh,Rajnish Kumar Rai,Satish Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajnish Rai who appears for the respondents.
This petition impugns the action of the respondents in refusing to process the candidature of the petitioners further who had participated in a selection process for being appointed in the Railway Protection Force.
Admittedly the petitioners participated in the written examination and were also declared successful. Their candidature was further processed and it was found that they had secured marks higher than the last selected candidate. This position is admitted to Sri Rai even today. The candidature of the petitioners appears to have been rejected at the final stage by the respondents. This is sought to be explained by Sri Rai who submits that after the completion of the selection process, the OMR sheets of all candidates were manually examined and in all cases where discrepancies were found, such candidates were excluded from the final select list.
Aggrieved by the rejection of their candidature, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition Nos. 18330 of 2015 and 55940 of 2014 respectively. Both these petitions were ultimately disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take a decision afresh. On remit the impugned orders dated 29 December 2016 and 20 February 2017 have come to be passed against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Both the petitioners have been removed from the final select list on the common ground of having bubbled the OMR sheet wrongly insofar as their roll numbers are concerned. The respondents however admit that the roll numbers were correctly mentioned by both the petitioners in numerical form. It is also not disputed before this Court that although the roll numbers were allegedly and incorrectly bubbled in the OMR sheet, the petitioners were declared successful in the written examination. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioners have been awarded marks incorrectly or inadvertently. The marks significantly as awarded to them by the respondents are liable to be recognised as those which the petitioners obtained in the written examination. That only leaves this Court to consider whether the mere fact that on a manual examination it was found that the roll numbers were wrongly bubbled would result in the petitioners being declared unsuccessful.
As noted above, Sri Rai learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not dispute the marks which were awarded to the petitioners as well as the fact that they successfully completed all the steps of the recruitment process. Their names have admittedly been excluded from the final selection list only consequent to the manual examination of OMR sheets. Before this Court and as noted above, it is admitted to the respondents that both the petitioners have obtained marks higher than the last selected candidate included in the final select list as prepared by the respondents. Additionally the Court notes that the respondents while dealing with the case of another candidate namely Shreeram Meena have proceeded to hold that the incorrect mentioning of roll numbers on the OMR sheet is a 'minor technical error' and in the absence of any deliberate action on the part of a candidate such discrepancies were liable to be ignored. Dealing with the case of Shreeram Meena the respondents have observed thus:-
"From the available record, it is observed that all entries have been made by the petitioner in OMR sheet in his own handwriting correctly. Though he has written the roll number numerically correct as 2141305179 but during shading of bubble he mistakenly shaded '0' inplace of '9' which shows that the intention of the petitioner is not mala-fide. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of minor technical error which he had not done deliberately. Hon'ble Justice of High Court, Allahabad also observered, the mistake of the petitioner as 'minor technical error'.
Since he has written his roll number correctly in numerical form, therefore his case deserves to be considered; otherwise grave in-justice will be committed towards him, if his candidature is rejected on the basis of wrong shadding of one numerical, which is minor in nature. Hence in the light of the above observations his appointment in RPF is considered."
The case of the petitioners stands on identical and equal footing. In view of the above, this Court finds itself unable to sustain the orders impugned.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The orders dated 29 December 2016 and 20 February 2017 are hereby quashed. The matter shall in consequence stand remitted to the Competent Authority of the respondents, who according to Sri Rai is the respondent No.2 herein. The second respondent shall now proceed to finalise the candidature of the petitioners in light of the observations made hereinabove.
Order Date :- 30.4.2019 faraz