Nira Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1995 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6633 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Nira Devi
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

Heard Shri Vinod Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:-

"a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to evaluate the OMR sheet of the petitioner under the notification dated 07.10.2021 having the question booklet series 'C' bearing its number 3186635 after tallying other details from the OMR sheet of the petitioner, within stipulated period of time which may be specified by this Hon'ble Court."

It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner appeared in the Teachers Eligibility Test-2021 conducted by the Examination Regulatory Authority, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj on 23.11.2022 but inadvertently she could not fill up the Code of her allotted booklet series that was 'C' in the OMR sheet while filling all her details as a result there of the same was not evaluated.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-State has placed reliance upon a judgement of this Court in Km. Bandana vs. State of U.P. and others being Writ Petition No.1452 of 2019, wherein the Coordinate Bench after taking note of various judgements of this Court as also the judgement of the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.90 of 2018 has been pleased to observe as under:-

"In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner failed to fill up column (2) Social Studies/O.Sub. shown in Part IV of the Original OMR sheet. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 14.12.2018 with a request to exempt the aforesaid mistake and treat the subject Social Studies/O.Sub. to be filled in column (2) in front of Part IV.

In this background of the matter it is contented by learned counsel for the petitioner that the mistake if any, committed by the petitioner should be rectified by the Invigilator.

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already given a view in Writ A No. 26173 of 2018 (Rajesh Kumar Yadav and 20 others Vs. State of U.P. And 2 others) decided on 17.12.2018. Para 5 of the aforesaid judgment which is relevant in order to decide the present controversy, is quoted below-

"5. In the opinion of the Court, any examination controlling authority prepares rules for examination to govern and proper instructions are also given in the booklet series which are provided to the candidates in the examination hall. 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. If this Court permits such mistakes to be corrected and the rules are framed to be followed, are allowed to be ignored where lacs of students are participating in the examination, this will lead to a situation where there will be no end to such exercise. Taking the allegations made in para 30 of the writ petition, the Court took a serious note of the argument at that point of time while it called for instruction and now having seen the instructions the allegations turn out to be absolutely false/ incorrect."

While deciding the case of Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Supra), learned Single Judge of this Court was also taken note of a judgment of Division Bench of this Court passed in Special Appeal No. 90 of 2018 (Jai Kishan Singh ad 52 others Vs. State of U.P. And 4 others).The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below-

"7. The said judgment has come to be affirmed in Special Appeal No. 90 of 2018 (Jai Karan Singh And 52 Ors v. State of U.P. And 4 Ors) in following terms:

"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."

At this point of time it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a mandamus be issued directing the respondents to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner. This Court cannot permit another window of argument as an alternative one to grant appropriate relief of alternative remedy of representation as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This view has already taken in Writ- A No. 841 of 2018 (Kanchan Bala and 172 others Vs. State of U.P. And 4 others, relevant paragraphs are quoted below-

"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."

Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

The law in this connection is also well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors. Vs. B. M. Vijaya Shankar and Ors. reported at AIR 1992 SC 952. The Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the Competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the Commission for public service in strict secrecy to get the best brain. It was held that the instructions contained in the answer-sheet should be complied with in its letter and spirit. The operative portion of the aforesaid judgment is quoted 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."

In view of the facts as narrated above, as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court, no relief could be granted to the petitioner insofar as the present writ petition is concerned."

This Court finds that the controversy on facts is quite similar and the ratio of law noticed in the case of Km. Bandana (supra) would clearly be attracted in the facts of the present case also. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 5.5.2022

S.P.