Bhagirath Das vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 846 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               W.P. (C) No.5340 of 2021
                          -----

Bhagirath Das                                   .......... Petitioner.
                        -Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand

2. The Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi.

3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi.

4. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad.

5. The District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad.

.......... Respondents.

-----

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. A. K. Thakur, A.C. to A.A.G.III For Res. Nos.2 & 3 : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate

-----

Order No.07 Date: 22.02.2023

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.2 to forthwith publish the result of the petitioner, as he had appeared in TET Examination, 2012 conducted by the Jharkhand Academic Council on 26th April, 2013. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction on the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation without any further delay.

The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner had opted for "science and mathematics" in TET Examination, 2012, however, while filling up OMR Sheet, he inadvertently marked the subject "social science" during the examination and his result was not declared due to the said reason, as would be evident from the reasoned order contained in memo no.JAC/Vidhi/56/13/CC/013/14 dated 4th January, 2014 passed by the Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi- respondent no.2 in compliance of the order dated 9th December, 2013 passed by a Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4408 of 2013. Such a trivial mistake committed by the petitioner cannot be a ground for not declaring the petitioner's result.

Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3 submits that though the reasoned order was passed by the respondent no.2 on 4th January, 2014 itself, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition much belatedly in the year 2021. Since the petitioner had wrongly marked the opted subject as "social science" in the OMR Sheet of TET Examination, 2012 instead of marking the actual subject "science and mathematics", as applied

by him, the same was rejected and, therefore, his result was not declared.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In the case of Astik Chandra Mondal and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand through its Secretary and Others, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Jhar 1292, the candidatures of the petitioners in TET examination 2012 were cancelled due to mistake committed in filling the OMR answer sheets and due to the wrong/non-filling of the required data. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court observing as under:-

"8. Before coming to the merit of the case of the parties, I would like to refer the judgment rendered in the case of Bhanu Priya v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2018) 3 JLJR 691, wherein identical matter came up for consideration before this Court and while rejecting the contention of the petitioner-candidate, it was held as under:--

"6. It is worth to mention that in a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5803 of 2016 [Mishra Somesh Kumar Shiv Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand] filed against the rejection of the candidature due to wrong shadowing of the bubbles of OMR sheet in 5th Combined Civil Service (Mains Examination), 2015, a Bench of this Court dismissed the said writ petition vide order dated 09.01.2017 with following observation:

"The petitioner, in paragraph no. 7 of the writ petition, has himself admitted that he darkened the bubble under the Centre Code wrongly. It is admitted at Bar that the entire system of evaluation of OMR sheet is fully computerised and no manual interference is permitted. It is stated that in the question-booklet/OMR sheet etc. instruction was printed that, OMR answer sheet will be processed, electronically and OMR Scanning machine will reject OMR sheet in which Roll number, Centre Code, Subject Code, Booklet Series and Booklet number are not properly and correctly shadowed. The OMR sheet of the petitioner which was wrongly darkened at one place, obviously was rejected by the computer and while so, no direction can be issued to the respondent- Jharkhand Public Service Commission to re-assess or to accept the marks which was published on the website, wrongly."

7. The said order was challenged by the candidate in L.P.A. No. 55 of 2017 which was also dismissed by the learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.09.2017 with following observations:--

"........... If there is an error on the part of the candidates in giving these details through darkening the circles, candidates are bound to suffer because first process is being done by OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) scanning machine and then Roll Number, Paper Code, Centre Code and such other details are being scrutinized by machine and not by manually i.e. by human-beings. Few may be advantageous and few may be disadvantageous. Candidates are bound to do practice at home. This case is no exception to such type of error committed by the candidates in inserting the Center Code by darkening wrong circle by their pencils. There is inbuilt demand of accuracy from the candidates that at least they must know how to write technically the details about their Roll Number, Centre Code etc. by darkening the circles. Examination means to check the accuracy of the candidates.

We see no reason to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(S) No. 5803 of 2016 vide judgment and order dated 09.01.2017 mainly for the reasons that:

(a) Darkening of the circles are part and parcel of the examination process.

(b) Process of the data of the candidates is through OMR scanning machine and they are bound to give correct data to the machine through darkening the circles.

(c) In Condition No. 4 of the Admit Card, it is clearly mentioned that OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) answer sheet will be processed electronically. As such invalidation of answer sheet due to incomplete/incorrect, filling/shadowing of the bubbles on OMR sheet, will be the sole responsibility of the candidate. OMR scanning machine will reject OMR sheet in which Roll No., Centre Code, Subject Code and Paper Code are not properly and correctly shadowed in Part-III.

In view of this condition, candidates are bound to be accurate. This Court cannot allow their lethargic approach; otherwise, there will be several candidates, who have committed error, will come to the Court and all the answer sheets are to be verified/checked/processed manually.

Now-a-days, partly such type of answer sheets are being processed by machines and partly by manual. Days are not far away, when everything will be processed by machines.

(d) Even otherwise also, result of 5th Combined Civil Services (Mains) Examination-2015 has already been declared in February, 2016, as submitted by the counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5. Candidates have been selected and by now, they have already been appointed and they are not joined as party-respondents."

8. It is the prime duty of a candidate who is appearing in any examination to read the instructions provided at different stages carefully and to ensure that the OMR sheet is filled up as per the instructions and if a candidate makes any fault due to his/her carelessness, no direction can be issued by the Writ Court in favour of such candidate. If the prayer of the petitioner is allowed, it would open a Pandora box for several candidates taking one or the other ground seeking intervention of the Writ Court which would in fact nullify the specific instructions provided to the candidates before and during the examination."

In Astik Chandra Mondal (Supra.), this court had also referred the judgment rendered by learned Division Bench in the case of Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi & Another Vs. Vandana Kumari and Others (L.P.A No.105 of 2018), as has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and

3. In the said case, the candidate had committed mistake in filling the OMR sheet. The learned Division Bench after taking note of condition no.8 whereby it was informed to the candidates that their candidatures would be cancelled if any entry was found/false/ incomplete/wrong, allowed the appeal of the JAC and confirmed its decision rejecting the candidature of the candidate. It was held inter alia that the candidate had to do some homework before going to the examination hall and the court is not supposed to rectify the errors committed by them especially in competitive examinations. For the slightest error, the candidate has to suffer. In competitive examinations, not only the grip on the subject of a candidate is evaluated but the accuracy of the candidates in filling up OMR sheets has also a bearing on their results.

If the particular columns are not properly filled up, then the candidate has to suffer.

On perusal of the petitioner's representation dated 17th November, 2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), it appears that he himself has admitted that due to mistake he has marked the opted subject as "social science" instead of "science and mathematics" in the OMR Sheet of the said examination. Wrong marking of the required particulars in the OMR Sheet cannot be said to be a curable mistake, rather the same leads to disqualification of a candidate as has been held in the aforementioned judgments. Moreover, the petitioner has also committed unreasonable delay in challenging the reasoned order dated 4th January, 2014 passed by the respondent no.2. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Court.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/