Rajasthan HC Denies Relief To Public Employment Aspirants Who Filled OMR Sheets Incorrectly
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a Petition by public employment aspirants who were seeking relief after their incorrectly filled OMR sheets were rejected from the evaluation process.
The Court said that to preserve the sanctity of the selection process for filling up posts under public employment the entire process should be followed not only by the Examination Agency but also by the candidates who choose to appear in the examination.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Ashutosh Kumar observed, “It is of utmost importance that in order to preserve the sanctity of the selection process for filling up posts under public employment that the entire process is not only clearly laid down but is scrupulously followed not only by the Examination Agency but also by the candidates who choose to appear in the examination.….such a blanket relaxation would completely destroy the sanctity of the examination process.”
Advocate Ashish Sharma Upadhyay appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Vishnu Kant Sharma appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
In the present case, the petitioners argued that despite their errors in filling out OMR sheets, they should not have been excluded from the selection process. They claimed that the instructions did not explicitly state that improper darkening would lead to exclusion. They believe they should have been allowed to correct their mistakes, given their merit, as exclusion could harm their future career prospects.
The Court said that the candidate in order to ensure that he is allowed to participate in the process of selection, is required to strictly adhere to various instructions which have been given to fill the OMR sheet.
The Court noted that violating instructions could disrupt the evaluation and selection process. According to the Court, if the question booklet series isn't mentioned, the OMR sheet cannot be evaluated and there is no established procedure in the selection process to permit candidates to correct such mistakes.
The Court mentioned the decision of the division of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Jagdish Chandra Jat where the Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and others vs. G. Hemalathaa and observed, “the instructions issued are mandatory and have to be strictly complied, as strict adherence to the terms & conditions of the instructions is of paramount importance.”
The Court said that the verdict of the Supreme Court highlighted the sanctity of the instructions issued for the conduct of the examination and the consequence of their violation in the case of Tamil Nadu and others v. G Hemlata and quoted, “The Instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to be strictly complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Payal Soni v. Rajasthan High Court (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:31009-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Ashish Sharma Upadhyay, Adv. Jaikishan Singh and Adv. Ramprakash Sharma
Respondent: Sr. Adv. A.K. Sharma and Adv. Vishnu Kant Sharma