THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
W.P.Nos.40381, 41113, 41559, 42031 & 42730 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
1 Heard Sri Ch.Srikanth and Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned
counsel for the writ petitioners.
2 Since the point involved in all these writ petitions is one and
the same, all these writ petitions are being disposed of by way of
this common order.
3 In all the writ petitions, the common case of the petitioners is
that they appeared for Group-I preliminary examination conducted
by the second respondent on 16.10.2022. Petitioners were
supposed to encode / bubble the hall ticket numbers, exam centre code, test booklet code at the columns given the Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets so also to encode / bubble the answers for each question using the prescribed ball point pen. Accordingly, the petitioners have bubbled the hall ticket number on their respective answer sheets and had also manually written their respective hall ticket numbers above the bubbling - a column specified for the same. The petitioners completed encoding the answers in the OMR sheets. Most of the petitioners who mistakenly bubbled the hall ticket number have bubbled Zero instead of 1 and 1 instead of Zero and a few petitioners bubbled again the correct number as no alternative was provided to them. The petitioners submitted their representations to the second respondent. While 2 being so, the second respondent informed all the petitioners that their OMR sheets cannot be considered due to the error in bubbling the hall ticket. The grievance of the petitioners is that it is not the case of the respondents not being able to identify the OMR sheets of the petitioners due to the mistake in bubbling the hall ticket number and the correct OMR sheets being made available on the website and the same being accessible using the hall ticket number of individual petitioner bears testimony of the fact that the petitioners' OMR sheets are very much intact and assigned to their respective hall ticket number. 4 The second respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the petitioners applied to the said notification having consented to the terms and conditions/instructions stipulated therein, including the instructions pertaining to the OMR answer sheet. The respondents emphasized that no request for reconsideration of such rejected / invalidated cases will be entertained. It is further submitted that the candidates were instructed to ask the invigilator for replacement if there is any defect in the Test Booklet or OMR answer sheet and as such there is no stipulation of providing a buffer answer sheet to the candidates. It is also stressed that the OMR answer sheets will be invalidated on wrong / erroneous / incomplete darkening / shading of hall tickets and it will lead to invalidation of candidates. If the Test Booklet Number is encoded incorrectly, as such OMR 3 scans cannot be valuated by the machine to valuate the questions in the Test Booklet Number. Similarly, when the candidate fails to bubble the Booklet number on OMR sheet, it is not possible to value his / her OMR answer sheet as there are different sets of answer keys for different Booklet numbers for different question papers, as the machine cannot determine the correct Booklet number and as a consequence, such OMR answer sheets are invalidated.
5 It is the specific contention of the respondents that identifying the correct Booklet number involves checking the examination records like nominal roll, attendance sheets which requires physical verification of the OMR answer sheets and records. This cannot be done as TSPSC dispensed with the manual intervention for evaluation by replacing it with electronic evaluation. Further, if thousands of candidates who made similar mistakes seek the same benefit of manual verification of other relevant records to determine the exact Booklet number of the candidates, such a situation is fraught with the ills of manual intervention besides delaying the recruitment process. 6 It is further submitted that out of all the candidates who appeared for the examination on 16.10.2022, a total number of 9932 wrong bubbling cases were identified by the scanner where the candidates made mistakes while encoding - scratching of 4 bubbles / erroneous bubbling etc., while filling the Hall Ticket Number / Test Booklet number on OMR sheet.
7 The learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the very purpose of enabling the candidates to manually write the Hall Ticket Numbers is to verify the OMR sheets manually in case there arise any error in the OMR sheets either mechanical or human error. Since in any event, the second respondent made avail of identifying OMR sheets in both manual manner and automated manner using computer system and in such a case erroneous bubbling in respect of Hall Ticket Number or question paper code under first part of the OMR sheet should not hammer the fate of the petitioners basing on the instructions which are not supported by any statutory provision and availing petitioners to identify their question sheets in both ways and valuating the said answer sheets in only automated / mechanical procedure, which is arbitrary exercise of power. It is also submitted that the invigilators were instructed to verify the incorrectness of the errors so occurred and permit the candidates to make corrections, upon which, the invigilator was to endorse to remove any such discrepancy. 8 On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that Courts could not overlook the mandatory nature of instructions issued by the Commission that would be binding on all candidates and that once an instruction has been issued by the Commission, the same will have to be 5 treated as mandatory in nature and require strict compliance without any exception. The learned Government Pleader further vehemently contended that when TSPSC has prescribed certain method and mode, the candidates must follow the same method in letter and spirit but they cannot deviate in any manner and relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Mahendra Singh1 wherein it was held at para No.14 as follows:
"......It is well settled that if a particular procedure in filling up the application form is prescribed, the application form should be filled up following that procedure alone. This was enunciated by Privy Council in the Nazir Ahmad vs. King Emperor2 wherein it was held that "that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden."
9 The learned Government Pleader also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. G.Hemalathaa3 wherein at para No.12 it was held as follows:
"After giving a thoughtful consideration, we are afraid that we cannot approve the judgment of High Court as any order in favour of the candidate who has violated the mandatory instructions would be laying down bad law......"
10 As can be summed up from the factual matrix, the issue involved in all these writ petitions relates to the mistakes committed by the petitioners while bubbling the circles meant for Hall ticket numbers. In the light of the above facts, it has to be seen whether the mistake stated to have been committed by the petitioners was committed advertently or inadvertently and whether the petitioners are entitled for any relief in the present writ petitions.
1 2022 LawSuit (SC)863 2 1936 SCC OnLine PC 41 3 2019 LawSuit (SC) 1539 6 11 It is an admitted and undisputable fact that the Commission has placed a sample OMR sheet on its website for the purpose of candidates' convenience, so that they can practice on the sample OMR answer sheet before going to the examination. The relevant paras of the instructions make it clear that the encoding or bubbling in the original OMR sheet would be final and no claim would be entertained. It was also clearly stated that forgetting to bubble any code will not entail the evaluation of answer scripts. So at every stage, the respondents have put the petitioners as well as the candidates who appear for the examination on notice about the mode of bubbling. So the petitioners cannot claim excuse or cannot also plead ignorance. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were under confusion also cannot be countenanced since the petitioners were conscious of the things to be done even prior to the examination.
12 It is to be borne in mind that the petitioners in these cases were appearing for Group-I examinations. So, besides knowledge and expertise on the syllabus, they should have basic knowledge about the mode of answering / bubbling the OMR sheets as well, which aspect also elicit the intricate mental ability of the candidate appearing for the examination.
13 Further, as could be seen from the counter affidavit of the respondents, a total number of 9932 wrong bubbling cases were identified out of 2.85 lakh candidates who wrote the examination 7 have committed this type of mistakes. In such circumstances, if the plea of the petitioners is to be considered, such an exercise will jeopardize the interests of 97% candidates who have bubbled correctly as per instructions. Therefore, question of violation of principles of natural justice or equity also does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. On this point I am fortified by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in TSPSC Vs. Pothula Durga Bhavani (W.A.No.1369 of 2018 & Batch dated 19.07.2021) wherein the division bench in unequivocal terms held at para No.15 as follows:
"15. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the errors committed by the petitioners of wrong bubbling/double bubbling and/or absence of bubbling in the hall ticket numbers are bona fide errors and can be easily corrected, is untenable. Tough as it may sound, compassion or generosity of the heart has no place in public examinations conducted by an Examination Regulatory Authority like the TSPSC. The petitioners ought to have carefully read the instructions issued by the TSPSC and correctly filled in their personal details, hall ticket number etc., in the OMR sheet, as mandated. Once it is admitted that the entries made were inaccurate due to which the answer sheets of the petitioners were not evaluated and in view of the fact that evaluation in such cases is an electronic process undertaken through scanners, with no human intervention, we are of the opinion that no directions can be issued to the TSPSC to conduct manual scanning of the weeded out answer scripts to collate and declare the results of the petitioners."
14 Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration and having regard to the facts and circumstances and in the light of the principle enunciated in Mahendra Singh (2 supra) and G.Hemalathaa (3 supra) more particularly the judgment of the division bench of this Hon'ble Court in Pothula Durga Bhavani case, this Court is of the considered view that though the craving of the writ petitioners is understandable, but this Court is bound by 8 the judgment of the division bench of this Court in Pothula Durga Bhavani case (supra) and hence constrained to come to the rescue of the writ petitioners.
15 In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.
16 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all these writ petitions shall also stand dismissed.
------------------------------
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date: .12.2022 Kvsn