Poonam Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 426 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?AFR
 
Court No. - 7
 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7533 of 2017
 
Petitioner :- Poonam Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu.Civil Sectt.Lko.&Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- B.R. Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vindhyawashini Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner herein appeared in the Teachers Eligibility Test for the year 2014. However, while filling up OMR Answer sheet in the top right hand column the language attempted was not mentioned by darkening the chosen bubble which in this case was Sanskrit. As the questions were objective type, therefore, the answers were to be evaluated by the computer, hence, in view of aforesaid position the computer did not evaluate the OMR answer sheet of the petitioner consequently his result was not declared. These are the instructions of the learned standing counsel in pursuance to the order of this Court passed on earlier date which are taken on record.

Contention of Sri B.R. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner based on a Division Bench judgment in Special Appeal No. 75 of 2013, another Division Bench judgment in Special Appeal No. 2312 of 2011 is, that, this was a human error for which the petitioner could not be penalized.

On a perusal of the instructions appended to the question booklet series it is revealed that sl. no.2 of the "important instructions" provides for choosing only one language which the candidate has selected as an option in his/her registration and mark on OMR sheet otherwise the answer sheet will not be evaluated, and the candidate will be wholly responsible for it. Thus the petitioner was very well aware that an omission on this count would have the aforesaid result. Further more. the 'instructions' asked the candidate to "read all instructions carefully before making any entry on the OMR answer sheet". Further more at sl. no.4 of those instructions, it was mentioned "your answer sheet will be evaluated through electronic scanning process. Incomplete or incorrect entries may render your answer sheet invalid." Further more, at sl. no.6 it was provided that "while darkening the appropriate bubble in the boxes darken the chosen bubble fully as given below." Thus, it is clear that specific instructions were given to the candidates with regard to the manner in which the OMR answer sheets were to be filled and the consequences of not doing so were also clearly mentioned. Much mileage was sought to be drawn by the counsel for petitioner based on the recital contained in the OMR sheet on the first page (page 18 to the writ petition) to the effect that "I hereby certify that I have checked the following information of the candidate. Name, Roll Number, Question booklet Series and Language attempted" which was to be signed by the Invigilator. Based thereon, it was contended that these are the duties of Invigilator, therefore, even if the candidate had omitted to mention the language attempted, the Invigilator should have immediately detected the same but it appears that he also faltered in this regard resulting in predicament in which the petitioner find herself.

The aforesaid recital on the OMR answer sheet is no doubt to make doubly sure that the requisite entries are made so that a candidate does not suffer but then the other instructions can not be ignored and the petitioner could not have shelved his own responsibility on account of aforesaid. The aforesaid recital is only an additional mechanism which does not take away the sanctity of the other instructions already referred hereinabove. Further more, evaluation of OMR answer sheet is by computer, therefore, once such omissions are made, the evaluation does not take place, consequently, the result has not been declared. There may be several other candidates who may have committed similar omissions and, therefore, if an exception is made in one case then it would be unfair to others who may not have approached this Court under the belief that considering the instructions mentioned in the OMR answer sheet they are not entitled to any relief.

The Court also takes note of a Division Bench judgment in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 117 of 2014 (Km. Richa Pandey vs. Examination Regulatory Authority & others, wherein a similar situation existed where the language attempted had not been mentioned by the candidate in the T.E.T Examination of 2013 and the Division Bench declined to entertain the petition for the reasons mentioned therein. The said judgment 18.02.2014 reads as under:- 

"We have heard Shri Kirtikar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents.

The delay of 24 days in filing the special appeal has been sufficiently explained and is not opposed by learned Standing Counsel. The delay condonation application is allowed. The delay is condoned.

This special appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 5.12.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.63870 of 2013, Km. Richa Pandey v. Examination Regulatory authority, U.P. & Anr. by which learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition for declaring the petitioner's result of the Teachers Eligibility Test Examination, 2013 held on 27.6.2013 on the ground that the petitioner did not fill up the column of language in which she had attempted answers in OMR answer sheet. Learned Single Judge found that in the absence of language being mentioned the OMR answer sheet could not be accepted for evaluation through the computer. He relied upon the order passed in Special Appeal No.834 of 2013, Ram Manohar Yadav v. State of U.P. and three others, dated 30.5.2013 in which the Court held that applicants who are incapable of correctly filling up their forms, are not entitled to any discretionary relief from the Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

At the time of entertaining this special appeal the respondents were directed to produce the original records including OMR sheet pertaining to appearance of the appellant before the Court.

Learned Standing Counsel has produced the OMR sheet and the answers sheet in which the petitioner has written essay on Mahatma Gandhi in Sanskrit language. The column 'language attempted' provided three options namely 'English', 'Urdu' and 'Sanskrit'. All the options were left blank by the petitioner.

The Secretary, Examination Controlling Authority, U.P., Allahabad, Incharge of TET Examination, 2013 has in her instructions given to learned Standing Counsel has stated that since the petitioner did not fill up the column of the language in which she has given answers, her answer book could not be evaluated. The instructions for the TET Examination, 2013 clearly provided that the candidate must fill up the essential columns namely column of roll number, answer book number, answer book series and the option of language without which the OMR answer sheet may not be evaluated.

During the course of argument learned Standing Counsel pointed out that the petitioner did not even correctly spell the name of her college and that in the answer sheet on which she had written the spelling of the roll number in Hindi is also incorrectly spelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Archana Rastogi (Km.) v. State of U.P. & ors., 2012 (3) ADJ 219 (DB) in which this Court granted relief in equity to the petitioner, where she had filled up High School marks incorrectly on the ground that High School certificate was enclosed along with application and from which marks could be easily ascertained. The petitioner did not want to get any ulterior benefit as she had disclosed her marks, which were less than the actual marks secured by her.

In the present case we find that the petitioner despite clear instructions did not fill up the column of language for evaluation of answer sheets by computer.

We do not find that the petitioner has taken any ground that all the series of answers in three languages were same and thus computer could have evaluated answers even if option of language was not given by the candidate.

The OMR sheets are provided to the candidates to speed up evaluation through help of computer. In case we accept the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the language in which the petitioner had written essay could be checked up by the examiner before feeding answer book into computer, the entire process of expediting the results will be lost. Where OMR sheets are to be examined with aid of the computer, it is not advisable and practical to direct that each OMR sheet should be checked by the examiners and the columns, which have not been filled up may be filled up by the examiner himself with the aid of the language used by the candidates for writing essay. We are informed by Standing Counsel that about seven lacs candidates had appeared in the test.

With such large number of candidates appearing in TET Examination 2013 it would not have been possible nor it was feasible for examiners to look into the answer sheets individually before feeding them into computer for correcting any mistakes.

We agree with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge that where the applicant is not capable of correctly filling up the form, she is not entitled to any discretionary relief from the Court.

The special appeal is dismissed."

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the Court can only empathize with the petitioner but cannot grant any relief, as, any deviation from the instructions mentioned in the OMR answer sheet will set a bad precedent.

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

Order Date :- 11.5.2017

Vijay                                                       (Rajan Roy, J)