Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nikhil Chawla vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3867/2021
Nikhil Chawla S/o Subhash Chawla, Aged About 28 Years, 129,
Har Milapi Colony A, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar,
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Police Headquarters,
Police Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Additional Director General Of Police (Recruitment),
Rajasthan Police Headquarters, Police Department, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. Inspector General Of Police (H.Q.), Rajasthan Police
Headquarters, Police Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Siddh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary for Mr. Manish
Vyas, AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
10/03/2021
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged the marking made by the respondents; contending that
even though the petitioner is entitled to 55 marks, the
respondent(s) has awarded only 7.5 marks to him.
2. Mr. Vivek Siddh, learned counsel for the petitioner invited
Court's attention towards Annex.2 - the photostat copy of the
carbon copy of OMR sheet and submitted that if petitioner's
answers are compared with the model answer key, the petitioner
surely secures 55 marks and, thus, the assessment of marks
made by the respondents is per-se incorrect.
3. Mr. Kailash Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents
(2 of 2) [CW-3867/2021]
invited Court's attention towards the OMR sheet and pointed out
that the petitioner had not darkened the circles properly, as was
required of him. He pointed out that the petitioner has darkened
the circles but in such a manner that, even 30% of the area of
corresponding circle has not been darkened, while submitting that
the assessment is done by the Computers on basis of darkened
circles and if less than 80% area is covered, the computers are
programmed to ignore such answer.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the
judgment of Division Bench dated 18.12.2018, passed in Surendra
Mirdha Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ
No.1801/2018), in which exactly identical controversy has been
decided and prayed that the petition be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the judgment in the case of Surendra Mirdha (supra),
this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner having
failed to darken the circles properly or to read the instructions
carefully is not entitled for any relief.
6. That apart, petitioner's result was declared way back in June,
2018 and the petitioner has approached this Court in the month of
March, 2021. The writ petition, thus, suffers from inordinate
delay.
7. The writ petition is dismissed on both the counts.
8. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
40-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
