Mukul Kumar vs State of Haryana and others

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—Petitioner -Mukul appeared in the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services Examination, 1996 conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter described as ''the Commission'') under roll number 21364. After the declaration of result, he along with one Satbir Singh filed C.W.P. No. 3967 of 1999 challenging the evaluation of their answer scripts got done by the Commission. In that petition, it was prayed that a writ of mandamus be Issued directing the Commission to get their answer scripts re-evaluated. After perusing the answer scripts produced by the learned counsel for the Commission, a Division Bench dismissed the petition on 26-3-1999.

In this petition, the petitioner has prayed that para 3(a) of the instructions printed on the Admission Certificate (Annexure P-1) be declared arbitrary and unconstitutional. He has also prayed that the Commission may be directed to declare his result after considering the marks secured by him in the cancelled papers and then interview for recruitment to the service.

The Commission has Justified its decision to treat the petitioner to have failed in the examination on the ground that he had disclosed his identity by writing answer script numbers on the cover of the first answer book.

In order to decide whether the cancellation of the petitioner''s papers is legally sustainable and justified, it will be useful to take notice of the instructions issued by the Commission. Para 3(a), (d); para 4(b) of the instructions printed on the Admission Certificate. Annexure P-l issued to the petitioner and the relevant extract of the Instructions printed on the first page of the answer book read as under :-

3(a) Disclosure of identity in any form like use of ink other than blue or blue black, writing of Roll No. and name at places other than specified, writing of serial no. of the scripts or putting of any type of mark etc. will amount to use of unfair means and will be penalised by cancelling the paper and awarding Zero marks.

(d) Candidates should carefully read and follow the instructions on the cover of the answer book.

** ** ** ** ** ** **

4(b) The candidate must complete the table printed on the cover of the answer book.

** ** ** ** ** ** **

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES

(Candidates will be penalized for failure to comply with the following instructions)

DONTS

DO''S

** ** ** **

** ** ** ** ** **

Do complete the table given below by putting a cross against the number of each question attempted and by indicating in the appropriate spaces the page and the book number at which each question begins.

** ** ** **

** ** ** ** ** **

Shri Sunil Panwar argued that If paras 3(a) and 3(d) of the Instructions printed on the Admission Certificate are read in conjunction with para 7 of the DO''S printed on the first page of the first answer book and specimen of the slip printed on the additional answer books, it becomes clear that the candidate is required to disclose not only the number of each question attempted but also the book number at which each question begins. This is precisely what the petitioner had done. He submitted that the petitioner cannot be accused of having deliberately violated para 3(a) of the instructions printed on the Admission Certificate with a view to disclose his identity. On the other hand, Shri H. N. Mehtani submitted that para 7 of the DO''S printed on the first answer book did not entitle the petitioner to write the numbers printed on the additional answer books which, in fact, represented serial number and by writing those numbers, the petitioner will be deemed to have disclosed his identity justifying cancellation of his papers. He submitted that clippings on the top of the opening sheet of the first answer book including the serial number of the answer sheet and the serial number of the additional answer sheet are removed and fictitious roll numbers are allotted before the answer sheets are sent to the examiners for evaluation and the purpose of keeping secrecy is completely frustrated if the candidate is allowed to write the numbers on the table printed on the first page of the first answer book.

During the course of arguments, Shri Mehtani produced the original answer sheets of the petitioner In a sealed cover. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, we have perused the original answer sheets. A perusal of the answer sheets shows that the petitioner has followed the instructions, as given In para 7 of the DO''S on the first page, which is reproduced below:-

Para 7:- Do complete the table given below by putting a cross against the number of each question attempted and by indicating in the appropriate spaces the page and the book number at which each question begins.

The petitioner has given the page numbers and also the numbers of additional answer sheets used.

After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are convinced that the petitioner did not make any attempt to disclose his identity. He had written down the book number along with the page on the first page of his first answer sheet because of the misleading print of the clippings supplied along with the additional answer sheets. According to Shri Mehtani., book number which is referred on the top of the answer script is the serial number and, therefore, the petitioner could not have written those numbers on the first page of the first answer book. In our view, the printing of the numbers on the clippings pasted on the additional answer sheets could definitely cause confusion in the mind of the petitioner as to whether that number was serial number or book number because the word ''Sr.'' is not written Infront of the word ''No.''. In fact, even after considerable efforts, Shri Mehtani was unable to satisfactorily explain as to why gap was left between book number and serial number printed on the clippings pasted on the additional answer books. In a confused state like this, the petitioner must have been misled in writing number on the clippings of the additional answer sheets. In our opinion, he cannot be held guilty of having disclosed his identity and on that premise, his examination could not have been cancelled.

The judgments of this Court in Devi Lal v. State of Haryana, C.W.P. No. 15889 of 1996 decided on 17-10-1996 and Rajiv Kumar v. Haryana Public Service Commission, C.W.P. No. 3738 of 1996 decided on 7-11-1996 relied upon by Shri Mehtani do not have any bearing on the issue raised in this petition. In those cases, this Court had upheld the Commission''s plea that the candidates had deliberately disclosed their identity and, therefore, cancellation of their papers was legal and justified.

In the result, we allow the writ petition and direct the Commission to Interview the petitioner if he comes within the zone of consideration after calculating the marks on the basis of the total award given to him by the examiners in various papers. If on the basis of the interview, he is found suitable then the Commission shall recommend the petitioner''s name for appointment to the service. This exercise shall be undertaken within a period of one month of the submission of certified copy of this order.

Before parting with the order, we deem it appropriate to observe that the Commission may look into the entire matter and take appropriate remedial measures so that the confusion like the one which led to the cancellation of the petitioner''s candidature may be avoided in future.