Anil Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Karan Shahdeo, learned counsel for the respondent-State and Mr. Sanjay Piprawall,

learned counsel for the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising

due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard on merit.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to evaluate the OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) answer

sheet of first paper of the petitioner whose Registration Number is 10000618, Roll No. is 10100014, Booklet Number is 200014 and Booklet series is

'B' in the examination of Jharkhand Finance Service (Limited) Competitive Examination for the post of Commercial Tax Officer held on 20.05.2018 by

the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. The prayer for recommending the name of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Commercial Tax

Officer is also made. The prayer is also made for direction to the respondent-JPSC to provide second copy/carbon copy of the OMR answer sheet to

the candidate.

The petitioner was appointed on the post of Block Statistical Supervisor on 26.02.2000. While the petitioner was continuing on such post, an

advertisement being Advertisement No.10 of 2010 was issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for appointment on the post of

Commercial Tax Officer through limited departmental examination. Since the petitioner was fulfilling all the criteria laid down in the advertisement, he

applied for such appointment. The petitioner was issued admit card. The examination was held on 20.05.2018.

Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the examination, did well and he was confident of being

selected, as the petitioner did exemplary well in the examination. He further submits that the OMR answer sheet of the petitioner was rejected by the

JPSC and that is why the petitioner has not been selected. He also submits that the petitioner has darkened two bubbles instead of one in Paper-II

while darkening the roll number and only on that ground the OMR answer sheet of the petitioner was not evaluated. He also submits that in such type

of examination, meritorious candidates are required to be considered. The petitioner has done well in the examination and only on the ground of

darkening two bubbles, OMR answer sheet of the petitioner could not be rejected by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. He further submits

that the case of the petitioner is fully covered in light of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.414 of 2015, dated

12.04.2016. He also submits that there was certain observation in the said L.P.A. that ""mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by

following due process of law"". He further submits that the observation made by the Division Bench is in favour of the petitioner. However, the said

L.P.A. filed by the similarly situated candidate was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. He further submits that there is possibility that

Paper-II of the petitioner has been tampered with by some of the officials of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. On these grounds, he submits

that the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission may be directed to evaluate the OMR answer sheet of the petitioner once again and if the

same is found correct, the name of the petitioner may be recommended for appointment to the Government.

Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondent- JPSC submits that the examination, in question has already been conducted

and the successful candidates have already been appointed in the year 2018. He further submits that the admit cards were issued in favour of the

candidates and in admit cards, instruction for candidates have also been issued. He refers to Clause-3 of the admit card, wherein, it is stated that the

candidates are advised to read instruction carefully, given in the question booklet/back side of OMR answer sheet attached with answer booklet

before attempting to answer the questions. In Clause-4 of the admit card, the instruction speaks that OMR answer sheet will be processed

electronically and as such invalidation of answer sheet due to incomplete/incorrect filling/shadowing of the bubbles on OMR sheet, will be the sole

responsibility of the candidate. OMR Scanning machine will reject OMR sheet in which Roll No. & Booklet Series are not properly and correctly (in

word or number or both as required) shadowed or fill-up in OMR sheet. He further submits that after receiving application from the petitioner under

Right to Information Act, OMR answer sheet has been provided to him and the petitioner has annexed the same in pages 58 and 59 of the writ

petition. He draws attention of the Court to page 59 of the writ petition and submits that the circles in roll no. have been darkened twice and that is

why the electronic machine has rejected the OMR answer sheet of the petitioner. He also submits that this aspect of the matter has been considered

by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.55 of 2017, whereby, the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been confirmed and the said

L.P.A. was dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2017. He further submits that one identical matter being L.P.A. No. 144 of 2014 was also dismissed by

the Division Bench of this Court, which travelled upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave to

Appeal (Civil) No.14798 of 2014 vide order dated 09.06.2014. On these grounds, he submits that the case of the petitioner is fit to be rejected.

In light of the above facts and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the instructions provided in the admit card, it

transpires that the candidates were advised for filling up the OMR answer sheet in clear terms. It was informed that if any bubbles are marked

wrongly, the electronic machine will reject the OMR answer sheet. In view of these facts, the candidates are bound to act as per the instructions. This

type of lethargic approach of the candidates was deprecated by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 55 of 2017 vide order dated

20.09.2017. There is inbuilt demand of accuracy from the candidates that at least they must know how to write technically the details about their roll

number and booklet series etc. by darkening the circles. Even otherwise also, the result of the Jharkhand Finance Service (Limited) Competitive

Examination has already been published and the successful candidates have already joined the service.

The judgment relied by Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in L.P.A. No. 414 of 2015 is not helping the petitioner as the said L.P.A.

was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court.

So far as prayer no. (iii) is concerned, that is not within the domain of the Court to pass such order. It is the policy decision of the Government and

for that the petitioner may move before the Government.

In light of the aforesaid facts and reasons, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.