Back
2020 Supreme(J&K) 374
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Sanjeev Kumar and Rajnesh Oswal, JJ.
Arshid Ahmad Allayee
Versus
State of J&K and Ors.
LPASW No.113/2018
Decided on 27-11-2020
For the Appellant(s):Mr. M. Ashraf Wani, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. B.A. Dar, Sr. AAG
Headnote:
J&K Special Recruitment Rules, 2015 - Advertisement - Examination Hall and the Deputy Superintendent of the Examination Centre ought to have pointed - Applications were invited by respondents for recruitment of Constables in IRP Battalion/ Executive Police in accordance with provisions of J&K Special Recruitment Rules as per District-wise/category wise breakup provided in Advertisement Notice- In District posts in Armed Police Executive Police were notified for selection out of which posts respectively were notified under RBA category- Appellant who submitted his online application was allotted Roll appellant after qualifying physical measurement test written examination conducted appellant was provided question Booklet bearing in written examination- He claims that he attempted more than questions correctly as per key provided and thus became entitled points while as last selected candidate in RBA category secured only Claiming that he was arbitrarily kept out of zone of selection appellant approached this Court by way of SWP –Held, Examination Hall and Deputy Superintendent of Examination Centre ought to have pointed Court rendered in case Sharma - This judgment does support case of appellant as in aforesaid case Single Bench of this Court was confronted with similar situation where candidate had mentioned wrong Booklet series on his OMR answer sheet which resulted in wrong evaluation of his answer sheet- This judgment it appears was assailed before Division Bench of this Court but appeal preferred by J&K Board of Professional Entrance Examination was disposed of and a cost was awarded to writ petitioner and matter landed before Supreme Court in Civil Appeal JKBOPEE which was decided Supreme Court did not agree with view taken by High Court and set aside judgment- What was held by Supreme Court in aforesaid case is reproduced We have heard learned counsel for parties- It is difficult for us uphold order of High Court on reasoning that though initial mistake was on part of respondent Invigilator at Examination Hall and Deputy Superintendent of Examination Centre ought to have pointed out error to respondent so as to facilitate correction by him on account of which lapse respondent had suffered- Court was also confronted with an identical issue in an appeal registered as LPA Division Bench of Gujarat High Court relying upon judgments of Supreme Court in case Sharma (supra) and State of Tamil Nadu arising out of rejected plea of a candidate who had committed mistake and had acted contrary to mandatory instructions of singing - Appeal dismissed
Judgment
Sanjeev Kumar, J.—This appeal by the appellant, in terms of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment dated 24th of July, 2018, passed by learned Single Judge in SWP No.2629/2017 titled “Arshid Ahmad Allayee Vs. State of J&K and others”.
2. The impugned judgment is assailed, primarily, on the ground that the Writ Court has given too much importance to the technicalities and has dismissed the petition on the ground that the writ petitioner had failed to follow the instructions of the examination and had given wrong/incorrect question Booklet number and, therefore, rejection of his candidature by the respondents was justified.
3. With a view to better appreciating the grounds of challenge urged on behalf of the appellant, it is necessary to take note of the few relevant facts.
4. Vide Advertisement Notice No. PERS-A-38/2016/59220-320 dated 08.10.2016, online applications were invited by the respondents for recruitment of Constables in IRP Battalion/ Executive Police in accordance with the provisions of J&K Special Recruitment Rules, 2015, as per the District-wise/category wise breakup provided in the Advertisement Notice. In the District of Pulwama, 174 posts in 5th Bn IRP, 18 posts in Armed Police and 30 in Executive Police, were notified for selection, out of which 35 posts, 04 posts and 06 posts respectively were notified under RBA category. The appellant, who submitted his online application, was allotted Roll no.1700297. The appellant after qualifying the physical measurement test sat in the written examination conducted on 8th of October, 2017. The appellant was provided question Booklet bearing No.2905409 in the written examination. He claims that he attempted more than 60 questions correctly as per the key provided and thus became entitled to 60 points while as the last selected candidate in the RBA category secured only 57 points. Claiming that he was arbitrarily kept out of zone of selection, the appellant approached this Court by way of SWP No.2629/2017.
5. On being put on notice by the Writ Court, the respondents appeared and filed their reply affidavit. It was pointed out by the respondents that it was true that the petitioner had participated in the process of selection for the post of Constable but could not make it to the selection because he could secure only 31 points and was figuring at serial No.790 in the merit list of District Pulwama and his merit was far less than the candidate last selected in the RBA category. It was further submitted that going by the scheme of examination, the question paper for the written examination consisted of objective type questions and answer to these questions had to be reflected in the OMR answer sheets. It is stated that all steps involved in the recruitment process were technologically driven with minimum human intervention and the answer sheets of all those who participated in the written examination were evaluated by means of computer by applying relevant answer key. It was thus necessary for the competing candidates to reflect their correct Question Booklet number in the OMR sheet so as to facilitate correct evaluation after locating corresponding Booklet series. It is the further stand of the respondents that the candidates participating in the written examination were made amply clear through a press release issued on 27th of September, 2017, and it was also part of the relevant instructions contained in the Question Booklet, that they were required to fill their roll number and Question Booklet number in OMR sheets correctly as the same were must for evaluation of their answer sheets. The appellant committed a glaring mistake in indicating his Question Booklet number in OMR answer sheet as 2905490 instead of 2905409 and, therefore, was evaluated as per the Booklet number indicated by him. He thus secured 31 points and could not make it to the final selection list.
6. The Writ Court after considering the rival contentions and having go
