Smt. Geetanjali Rawat vs Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and Another

Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Shri V.B.S. Negi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.D. Kandpal, the learned Counsel for the respondents.

An advertisement dated 30th May, 2009 was issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission inviting applications for the post of Lecturers in the various Government Intermediate Colleges/Government Girls Inter Colleges in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in English and Lecturer in Home Science and filled up two separate OMR (Optical Marks Reader) forms. In column No. 13 of the said form, the petitioner was required to give the subject and code for the post of Lecturer. The petitioner contends that she had duly filled up column No. 13 and had given the code number and the subject, i.e., English and Home Science respectively and had also filled up the circle indicated in column No. 13 specifying the area of subject. The petitioner''s application was rejected on the ground that column No. 13 was not filled up. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.

This Court by an interim order dated 21.05.2010 had directed the respondents to produce the original OMR forms filled by the petitioner. In response to the said direction, the relevant page of the OMR form showing the column No. 13 has been produced by the learned Counsel for the respondents.

Upon a perusal of the original OMR form, the Court finds that in one form in column No. 13, code number 01 and the subject English has been filled up in the box and the circle 01 has also been shaded in pencil. The shading of circle 01 is faint and is not shaded darkly. Similarly, the second form indicates that the petitioner had filled code No. 16 and subject Home Science in the box in column No. 13 and, similarly, the circle 16 has been faintly shaded in pencil.

It is quite possible that because of faint shade of the circle, the computer was unable to pick up the appropriate circle and accordingly, the said forms have been rejected. In my opinion, the respondents committed an error in rejecting the application forms of the petitioner.

This Court by an interim order dated 21st May, 2010 had directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in the screening test which would be subject to the result of the writ petition. Based on the aforesaid direction, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the screening test. Since the Court finds that the rejection of the petitioner''s application had wrongly been done by the respondents, the writ petition is allowed. The rejection of the petitioner''s application by the respondents is set aside. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner.