Jitendra Sharma vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2763 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 73/2021

1. Jitendra Sharma S/o Shri Madan Lal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Brahamno Ka Bass, Digari Kallan, Ward No. 79, Banar Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).

2. Kalyan Singh S/o Shri Hadmat Singh, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Jodhawas, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.).

----Appellants Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Special Secretary To Government, Department Of Medical And Health And Mission Director, Nhm, Nhm Block, Health Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. Director (Public Health), Medical And Health Services, Health Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yash Pal Khileree For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vandana Bhansali, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

Judgment

02/02/2021

1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against order dated

27.1.21 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby

the writ petition preferred by the appellants seeking directions to

the respondents to evaluate the OMR answer sheets, has been

dismissed.

2. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.8.20 issued by the

Mission Director, National Health Mission ('NHM'), the appellants

(2 of 3) [SAW-73/2021]

applied for appointment on the post of Community Health Officer

under NHM on purely contractual basis on fixed honorarium

Rs.25,000/-. The appellants appeared in the written examination.

The candidates were given two sets of question booklet; set 'A'

and set 'B'. They were required to select either set 'A' or set 'B'.

The appellants failed to fill-in the requisite column for

corresponding question booklet set 'A' or 'B' and therefore, their

answer sheets were not evaluated.

3. Precisely, the case set out by the appellants before the

learned Single Judge was that it was only a bonafide mistake on

their part that the column meant for corresponding question

booklet remained unfilled and therefore, on that account, the

refusal of the respondents to evaluate the OMR answer sheets, is

absolutely unjustified. It was contended that when the provision

has been made for evaluating the answer sheets while deducting 5

marks in case of wrong mentioning of roll number, it was

incumbent upon the respondents to evaluate the answer sheets

while permitting the appellants to rectify the error crept in.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that

the appellants were not aware about issuance of two sets of

question booklet inasmuch as, they were issued set 'B' of question

booklet. Reiterating the contention raised before the learned

Single Judge, learned counsel submitted that in case of

mentioning of wrong roll number, the mistake is permitted to be

rectified by deducting 5 marks, there was no reason not to permit

the appellants to rectify the mistake of non indication of the set of

question booklet opted.

5. Indisputably, before attempting the question paper, the

candidates were expected to read the instructions carefully. Unless

(3 of 3) [SAW-73/2021]

question booklet 'A' or 'B' opted by the appellants is reflected in

the OMR sheets, the answers given could not have been evaluated

by OMR software application. The appellants, who were negligent

in not reading the instructions properly and not filling the column

meant for corresponding question booklet set, could not have

been granted indulgence to fill up the column in the OMR sheets

subsequently. If the OMR sheets are permitted to be opened and

corrected in this manner, it may result in making fairness and

transparency in the examination process questionable. For the

parity of reasons, the OMR sheet cannot be permitted to be

evaluated physically either.

6. For the aforementioned reasons, we are in agreement with

the view taken by the learned Single Judge.

7. No case for interference by us in intra-Court appeal

jurisdiction is made out.

8. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.

                                   (RAMESHWAR VYAS),J                                        (SANGEET LODHA),J
                                    65-Aditya/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)