Kunwari Tuti … v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6573 of 2017 --- Kunwari Tuti … … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. … Respondents --- CORAM
Legal Reasoning
: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner For the Resp.-JAC For the Resp.-State --- : Ms. Nivedita Kundu, Advocate : Ms. Pinky Shaw, A.C. to Ms. Richa Sanchita, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Choudhary, AC to SC (L & C)-II --- 07/30.10.2023 Heard the parties. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to provide the mark-sheet of JTET Examination, 2016 for Class-1 to 5 though the petitioner has passed the said examination conducted by the Jharkhand Academic Council. A further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 29.10.2017. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the respondents have taken a stance that OMR sheet was defective and not properly filled up, but the name of the petitioner has been inserted in the list showing her to have qualified in the said examination. It has further been submitted that if the OMR sheet is not properly filled up, the scanning machine will not accept such defective OMR sheet and therefore it is an after-thought on the part of the respondents to claim that the OMR sheet was not properly filled up. Learned counsel appearing for the JAC has submitted that admittedly column no.6 of the OMR sheet was not filled up by the petitioner and in the advertisement itself the candidates have been cautioned of checking the OMR sheets and in filling up the respective bubbles and in case of any error the candidature will be deemed to be cancelled. It has been submitted that since Column 6 of the OMR sheet was not filled up by the petitioner, the same cannot be considered at this stage. The petitioner in terms of Advertisement no.47/2016 had applied for JTET Examination and had appeared on 20.11.2016 in the said -2- examination. In the final merit list cum result which was published by the Jharkhand Academic Council in the year 2017, in the remarks column it was mentioned that the petitioner has qualified. Petitioner in terms of the direction of the authorities, went to collect her mark sheet, but she was informed that the computer was not showing her roll number and she was advised to contact the office of Jharkhand Academic Council. It is the grievance of the petitioner therefore that when the merit list was prepared, the petitioner was shown as qualified and therefore the respondents cannot take a different stand while disentitling the petitioner to have qualified for JTET. Initially in the counter affidavit which was filed by the respondents, no specific reply was given to the
Decision
averments made by the writ petitioner which resulted in an order being passed by this Court on 8th August 2019, pursuant to which a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the JAC which indicates that Column-6 of the OMR sheet was not filled up by the petitioner which resulted in her candidature having been rejected. It appears to be an admitted fact that column-6 of the OMR sheet was not filled up by the petitioner. Merely because in the merit list the petitioner was shown to have been qualified it appears that the petitioner is trying to take advantage of such merit list when in the backdrop of the shortcomings in the OMR sheet in terms of the advertisement the candidature of the petitioner was rightly cancelled. In fact, this issue has been considered in LPA No.55 of 2017 wherein it has clearly been held as follows :- “2. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant is an original petitioner, who has approached the learned Single Judge by way of filing writ petition, being aggrieved of rejection of his candidature for appointment, pursuant to 5th Combined Civil Services (Mains) Examination-2015. It further appears that artificial intelligence and primary scrutiny by machine has created the problem for this appellant. Certain bubbles were to be darken for giving Roll Number, Paper Code, Centre Code etc. There are various types of details to be given in the form of darkening of circles, which are at the first page of the answer sheet. This may be unusual for few candidates, but, this is a normal and routine phenomena for rest of the candidates. If there is an error on the part of the candidates in giving these details through darkening the circles, candidates are bound to suffer because first process is being done by OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) scanning machine and then Roll Number, Paper Code, Centre Code and such other details are being -3- scrutinized by machine and not by manually i.e. by human-beings. Few may be advantageous and few may be disadvantageous. Candidates are bound to do practice at home. This case is no exception to such type of error committed by the candidates in inserting the Center Code by darkening wrong circle by their pencils. 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, Centre Code etc. by darkening the circles. Examination means to check the accuracy of the candidates. 3. We see no reason to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(S) No. 5803 of 2016 vide judgment and order dated 09.01.2017 mainly for the reasons that: (a) Darkening of the circles are part and parcel of the examination process. (b) Process of the data of the candidates is through OMR scanning machine and they are bound to give correct data to the machine through darkening the circles. (c) In Condition No.4 of the Admit Card, it is clearly mentioned that OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) answer sheet will be processed electronically. As such 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., Centre Code, Subject Code and Paper Code are not properly and correctly shadowed in Part-III. invalidation of answer sheet due In view of this condition, candidates are bound to be accurate. This Court cannot allow their lethargic approach; otherwise, there will be several candidates, who have committed error, will come to the Court and all the answer sheets are to be verified/ checked/ processed manually. Now-a-days, partly such type of answer sheets are being processed by machines and partly by manual. Days are not far away, when everything will be processed by machines. (d) Even otherwise also, result of 5th Combined Civil Services (Mains) Examination-2015 has already been declared in February, 2016, as submitted by the counsel for respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5. Candidates have been selected and by now, they have already been appointed and they are not joined as party-respondents.” In view of the aforesaid facts therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of an error committed by the Jharkhand Academic Council in treating the petitioner to have qualified in the merit list which was prepared and therefore in the circumstances noted above, I am not inclined to accede to the prayer made by the writ petitioner. This writ application accordingly stands dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Shamim/