IMPORTANT POINT
Strict compliance with examination instructions is mandatory, and deviations cannot be excused to preserve the integrity of public recruitment processes.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

“It is, therefore, humbly and most respectfully prayed that your lordships may very graciously be pleased to admit and allow this Civil Writ Petition and further:

(i) By issuing appropriate writ order or direction, the petitioner's OMR sheet may kindly be checked and the petitioner may be allowed to participate in the further process of recruitment and if she falls within the merit, she may be considered for the post of Civil Judge Cadre suitable.

(ii) That any other order or direction as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fair, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the Petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 09.04.2024 issued by the respondents, the petitioner applied for the post of Civil Judge Cadre Examination, 2024. The preliminary examination for the said post was conducted by the respondents on 23.06.2024. Thereafter, result of the said examination was declared on 15.07.2024.

3. After participating in the selection process, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 02.08.2024 seeking the relief as claimed in the prayer clause.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that while declaring the result of the candidates by the respondents on 15.07.2024, according to Note No. 7, his result was withheld. His OMR sheet was not examined and has been excluded from further process of evaluation as the petitioner failed to fill the bubble against her roll number in the OMR sheet. Counsel submits that action of the respondents in excluding the petitioner from further process of evaluation is arbitrary and complete non-application of mind. Counsel further submits that it is a minor mistake committed by the petitioner. Counsel further submits that due to inadvertence, the petitioner failed to mark the circle against one of the column and the said column was left blank. However, she has mentioned the roll number in numerical form in the OMR sheet. Counsel further submits that as per the instructions for the candidates issued by the respondents for preliminary examination, according to instruction No. 14, the word may have been mentioned for any wrong committed by the candidate while excluding the candidate from the process of evaluation. Counsel further submits that the respondents be directed to evaluate the OMR sheet of the petitioner.

5. In support of the contention, counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Neelam Kumari Vs. Yogender Singh & Ors. (CMPMO No. 14/2015 decided on 19.06.2015) where in Para No. 10, it has been held as under:

“10. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the Statute, the provisions of the CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.”

6. Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Kumar Bharti & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal No. 29794/2016 decided on 19.03.2018).

7. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11861/2024 in the matter of Payal Soni & Anr. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Anr. decided on 23.07.2024 which reads as under:

“1. Heard.

2. Learned cou