Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rani Manderna vs Haryana Staff Selection ... on 4 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 5986 of 2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision:04.07.2022
Rani Manderna ......Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission
...... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Birla, Advocate
for Mr. M.S.Chahal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Dr. Kiran Pal Singh, AAG., Haryana.
*****
LISA GILL, J(Oral).
Prayer in this writ petition is for quashing the impugned action
of the respondent, whereby the OMR answer sheet of the petitioner has been
considered as defective and her candidature has been rejected.
Petitioner, it is submitted applied for the post of PGT Hindi
(Cat., No. 7) under the General Category pursuant to advertisement no.
4/2015. She took the written test, but when the result was declared,
petitioner's roll number was not reflected in the select list. It is stated that
petitioner was verbally informed that her candidature has been rejected as
there is scratching/smudging against Question no.11, which is not
permissible, therefore her candidature has been rejected.
Aggrieved therefrom, present writ petition has been filed
seeking quashing of action of the respondent in rejecting her candidature on
account of her OMR sheet being defective and directing the respondent-
Commission to award marks to the petitioner after evaluating her OMR
sheet as per the answer key provided in set D and consider the petitioner
1 of 5
eligible for the post of PGT Hindi.
As per short reply filed on behalf of the respondent, it is
specifically stated that the petitioner has scratched/ smudged her answer
sheet against Question no.11, therefore her OMR sheet was not evaluated as
per the specific terms and conditions, which were made well known to the
petitioner. Reference is made to Instruction no.6 on the Admit Card which
reads as under:-
"6. Candidates are warned not to fold, tear, destroy or make
any stray marks on the OMR Answer Sheet. Use of eraser, nail,
blade, while fluid/whitener etc., to smudge, scratch or damage
in any manner on the OMR sheet during examination is strictly
prohibited. Candidature/ OMR sheet of candidates using eraser,
blade, nail or white fluids/whitener to smudge, scratch or
damage in any manner the answer sheets shall be cancelled."
It is further stated that candidates were given the question paper
with printed instructions on the front reverse side besides instructions on the
OMR sheet. Categoric instructions are stated to be printed on the question
paper as well as with candidates having sufficient proper time to go through
the same. Instruction no.8 and relevant portion of instruction no.9, read as
under:-
"8. Candidates are warned not to fold or make any stray
marks on the OMR Answer Sheet. Use of eraser, nail,
blade, while fluid/whitener etc., to smudge, scratch or
damage in any manner on the OMR sheet during
examination is strictly prohibited. Candidature/ OMR
sheet of candidates using eraser, blade, nail or white
fluids/whitener to smudge, scratch or damage in any
manner the answer sheets shall be cancelled."
9. xxxxx. Use of Eraser, nail, blade, white fluid/whitener
etc., smudging, scratching or damaging in any manner
the OMR answer sheet shall lead to cancellation of
2 of 5
candidature and such OMR answer sheet shall not be
evaluated."
It is further stated that the OMR sheet has instructions on its
back and relevant portion of condition no.7, is reproduced as under:-
"Candidates have to answer questions from the multiple choice
of Answer A, B, C or D. Select the right answer of each
question and darken the correct bubble on the OMR answer
sheet. Once darkened changes are not permitted. Use of eraser,
nail, blade, white fluid/ whitener etc., to smudge, scratch,
damage in any manner on the OMR sheet during examination is
strictly prohibited & it's use any where shall lead to
cancellation & such OMR sheet shall not be evaluated."
It is further stated that a categoric undertaking is submitted by
the candidate as reflected in the OMR sheet itself to the effect that all
instructions have been read and understood by the said candidate and that in
case, candidate darkens the wrong circles, his or her candidature is liable to
be rejected in case of incorrect filling of the OMR sheet.
Original OMR sheet of the petitioner produced in Court today
pursuant to order dated 14.11.2018 has been perused. Same has also been
examined by learned counsel for the petitioner, who is unable to deny that
there is clear cut scratching/ smudging against Question no.11.
In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner is
unable to deny that the matter is squarely covered against the petitioner in
view of judgment of this High Court in CWP-4938-2021 titled Nishant
Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others, decided on 05.07.2021, which has
been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Question of a statement being made in some earlier writ petition
to the extent that the commission is very much willing to look at its option
for the future regarding checking of some of the altered/smudged OMR
3 of 5
sheet instead of rejecting the entire OMR sheet also stands settled and has
been taken note of by a Coordinate Bench of this High Court in Neeraj
Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP no. 7244 of
2021, decided on 20.08.2021 observing as under:-
"The issue had been raised earlier in CWP No.26745 of
2017 Ravinder Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on
18.12.2017 (Annexure P-9) before another Co-ordinate Bench,
wherein certain observations were made by the Bench on
account of the fact that Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, learned
Advocate General, Haryana submitted that the Commission is
very much willing to look at its option for the future regarding
the checking of the altered/smudged OMR sheets instead of
rejecting the entire OMR sheet, relying upon the opinion given
by the expert.
In the reply filed by the respondent-Commission, it has
been specifically averred that as per the resolution of the
Commission dated 04.01.2018, earlier practice as such not to
evaluate the smudged answer sheets was being retained to avoid
cheating, tampering, manipulation, malpractices etc. The
relevant portion of the resolution reads as under:-
"It is also well settled that an examining body can lay its
instructions. Thus, in view the position as mentioned
above, the Commission unanimously decide and resolve
that even though as per the expect the evaluation of
smudged answers is technically possible but in view the
larger interest and to prevent cheating in the
examination hall by the candidate, candidate's interest
and tempering, manipulation, malpractices, fraudulent
practices by manual intervention at any stage, pre-exam
or post-exam, the process already being followed, i.e. not
to evaluate the smudged/scratched should be continued
for the exam to be held in further and as such reiterates
the stand already taken in the matter."
4 of 5
This aspect has also been noticed by the Coordinate
bench in Aarti's case (supra). In similar circumstances, another
Civil Writ Petition No.6952 of 2021 Reman Kumari Vs.
Haryana Staff Selection Commission, decided on 05.04.2021
was dismissed against same advertisement No.6 of 2006 and
was upheld by the Division Bench in LPA No.463 of 2021
Reman Kumari Vs. Haryana Staff Selection Commission, on
20.05.2021."
Taking into consideration the consistent view on this matter, no
ground whatsoever is pointed out for any interference in this writ petition.
No other argument has been raised.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
[LISA GILL]
04.07.2022 Judge
s.khan
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No.
Whether reportable : Yes/No.
5 of 5
