Raj Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1330 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Writ Petition (S/S) No. 717 of 2023

Raj Kumar                                         ........Petitioner

                             Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                  .....Respondents
Present:-
      Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
      Mr. Narayan Dutt, Brief Holder for the State.
      Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, Advocate for the respondent
      no.3.

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner

seeks the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the

nature of certiorari quashing the

impugned order/letter dated 08.07.2021

passed by respondent no.3 (contained as

Annexure no.8 to this writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the

nature of mandamus commanding and

directing the respondents no.2 to

evaluate petitioner OMR Sheet, and

declare their numbers so as to enable

them to participate in future stages of

promotional exercise on the post of head

constable/S.I.

                 (iii) To    pass     any    suitable      order    or

                 direction     of     any   nature       which     this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in

the present circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of the Writ petition."

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The petitioner has been working in

Uttarakhand Police Force. He responded to an

advertisement for the promotion to the post of Head

Constable. The written examination was based on

Multiple Choice Questions. Each candidate was required

to fill up the question booklet series, but the petitioner

did not fill it up. Resultantly, his OMR sheet could not be

evaluated and in his result, zero marks were reflected.

Some other candidates, who had also committed the same

mistake, filed a Writ Petition (S/S) No.636 of 2021 ("the

writ petition"), which was decided on 10.06.2021, with the

following observation:-

"Without venturing the merits of the matter at this stage since the issue has already been referred by respondent no.3 to be decided on the representation of the petitioner by respondent no.2, who is directed to take a decision on the recommendation made on 03.04.2021, by respondent no.2 on the representation of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order within a period of four weeks from the date of representation of certified copy of this judgment.

Subject to the above, the writ petition stands disposed of."

4. Thereafter, by the order dated 8.06.2021, their

representations were rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that it was a departmental examination. The

department was well aware as to which question series

was given to each of the candidates. Therefore, the

department could have corrected the mistake, which was

committed by the petitioner. She would also argue that

now the rules have been changed for promotion.

6. In fact, similar issue has already been decided

by this Court in WPSS No.991 of 2021, Narendra Singh

Negi and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, in

which the Court has observed as hereunder:-

"7. The petitioners have not been deprived of any of their statutory rights by any action of the respondents. Admittedly, it is a mistake committed by

the petitioners themselves. They did not fill up the OMR sheets as per the instructions. They did not fill up the columns with regard to specific booklet series in their OMR sheets, despite categorical instructions to fill up complete information. The instruction, which were given to the petitioners also further notify that in case of non filling up of complete OMR sheets, may entail award of zero marks. That is what is done.

8. This Court does not see any reason to direct the respondents now to get the OMR sheets fill up so as to show as to which question booklet series, it belongs to. In fact, it is a question of maintaining purity of the examination. What if thousands and thousands of candidates in some examination make such mistake and come before the Court seeking equity? If such actions are permitted, perhaps examination process would further be burdened by such avoidable mistakes. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed."

7. In the instant case also, the petitioner did not

fill up the OMR sheets, as per instructions. He did not fill

up the columns with regard to the specific booklet series

in the OMR sheet, despite categorical instructions to fill

up the columns. The instructions, which were given to the

petitioners also further notify that in case of non-filling of

the complete OMR sheets, which may entail award zero

marks, which has been done in the instant case.

8. Having considered, this Court is of the view

that there is no reason to make any interference.

Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at

the stage of admission itself.

9. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 15.05.2023 Ravi Bisht