Andhra Pradesh Public Service ... vs Y. Surender Reddy,
2022 Latest Caselaw 2462 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2462 Tel
Judgement Date : 9 June, 2022

Telangana High Court

Andhra Pradesh Public Service ... vs Y. Surender Reddy, on 9 June, 2022

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                           AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                     WRIT APPEAL No.1340 OF 2008

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

27.12.2007           passed       by      the     learned       Single     Judge    in

W.P.No.27064 of 2007.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the writ

petition was preferred by the sole respondent being aggrieved by

the action of the present appellant in not evaluating his answer

book in respect of Accounts Test for P.W.D. Officers and

Subordinates Paper-II Examination held on 17.06.2007. The

facts further reveal that the respondent/writ petitioner

appeared in the examination pursuant to Notification

No.19/2006 and the examination was of two papers i.e., Paper-I

and Paper-II with Paper Code Nos.137 and 142. Results were

declared, however the respondent/writ petitioner was declared

qualified in Paper-I i.e., Paper Code No.137 as he obtained 44

marks, but in respect of Paper-II i.e., Paper Code No.142, it was

mentioned that "Invalid for Roll.No. wrongly encoded". Meaning

thereby, Paper-II was not valued at all. A reply was filed in the

matter and the present appellant brought to the notice of the

learned Single Judge that the respondent/writ petitioner has

not followed the instructions meant to the candidates and in the

instructions, it was clearly mentioned that the candidates

should fill register number (hall ticket number) legibly in the

boxes provided for on Barcode answer sheet and encode it

properly, otherwise the answer script will be invalidated.

Undisputedly, the respondent/writ petitioner has not followed

the same, his answer script was invalidated and it was a

mistake committed by the respondent/writ petitioner alone.

The learned Single Judge, in spite of the aforesaid, has directed

valuation of the answer script.

The order was passed by the learned Single Judge in the

year 2007 and we are in the year 2022. There was interim stay

granted in the year 2008 and the answer sheet has not been

valued so far. The other important aspect of the case is that the

respondent/writ petitioner has subsequently qualified the

examination in question.

The operative portion of the order passed by the learned

Single Judge is reproduced as under:-

"Learned counsel for the respondent stated that, in the OMR Barcode sheet supplied at the time of examination, the candidate has to fill his name hall ticket number, name of the examination etc. and encode the paper code number and hall

ticket number properly i.e. fill-up the circle having the same digit against each digit of the code number and hall ticket number.

The said OMR sheet will be tagged to the answer script of the candidate and, at the time of evaluation, the OMR sheet will be fed into the computer and, if all the columns are properly filled up and are properly encoded, the same would be accepted and the answer script will become valid for evaluation; otherwise, the OMR sheet will be rejected and the answer script will be invalidated. Coming to the case of the petitioner, since he did not properly encode the hall ticket number and wrongly encoded the same, his answer script was invalidated. He further contended that in the notification, at clause (xvii) of the important instructions to the candidates, it is clearly mentioned that the candidate should fill the register number (hall ticket number) legibly in the boxed provided for on Barcode answer sheet and encode it properly, otherwise the answer script will be invalidated. Since the petitioner has not followed the same, his answer script was invalided and the same cannot be said to be wrong on the part of the respondent.

Learned counsel for the respondent has produced before the Court the OMR Barcode sheet belonging to the petitioner and, on perusal of it, it is clear that the petitioner, while filling up all other particulars correctly, wrongly encoded the hall ticket number by filling up the 5th circle against the digit '1', and 1st circle against the digit '8'. In my opinion, it is only a bona fide mistake committed by the petitioner, may be, out of nervousness and confusion, but not with any ill intention.

In this connection, it may be relevant to notice a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. Vijayalakshmi and another (AIR 1983 AP 321), wherein, in similar circumstances, it was held that a humanitarian approach is required when the errors committed are accidental and unintentional.

In the light of the aforementioned judgment and in the facts and circumstances, the respondent is directed to have the answer script of the petitioner valued and communicate the result to the petitioner.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs."

In the considered opinion of this Court, once the mistake

was on part of the respondent/writ petitioner in encoding the

answer script, it was rightly not evaluated by the appellant and

therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves

to be aside and is accordingly set aside.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent/writ

petitioner has argued before this Court that in the light of the

judgment delivered in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs.

Vijayalakshmi1, humanitarian approach is required when

errors committed are accidental and unintentional.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the error can be