RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to declare the petitioner as a successful candidate in the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short "JPSC"), Combined Civil Service Preliminary Examination (P.T.). 2016 as he got 232 marks, which is higher than that of the last successful candidate.

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the JPSC issued an Advertisement No. 23 of 2016 for Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination (P.T.), 2016 thereby inviting applications from such candidates, who are interested and eligible for the same. Pursuant to the Advertisement No. 23 of 2016, the petitioner applied and appeared in the Preliminary Test examination, which was held on 18.12.2016. The respondent-JPSC declared the result of preliminary examination on 23.2.2017 and the same was uploaded in the official website of the JPSC but the name of the petitioner did not find place in the list of successful candidates. The petitioner examined his Optical Marked Recognition (OMR) sheet from the official website of the respondents and found that in the roll number column, one horizontal line has been drawn and that could be one of the reasons for the rejection of the OMR sheet of the petitioner. In the answer sheet details of the petitioner, the result has been shown as rejected and the reason has been assigned as "rejection of OMR sheet due to any of the reasons mentioned below:--

(i) Wrong bubbling of roll No. or booklet series in the OMR Sheet; or

(ii) Not bubbling of roll No. or booklet series in the OMR sheet; or

(iii) Multiple bubbling of roll No. or booklet series in the OMR sheet; or

(iv) Booklet series not matching with relevant entry in attendance sheet; or

(v) Absent in any of the paper either paper-I or paper-II

When no cogent reason for rejection was given to the petitioner, he filed representation before the respondent-JPSC on 31.3.2017 but the respondent neither assigned any reason for the same nor declared the result of the petitioner amongst the successful candidates, which gives rise to filing of the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that none of the faults mentioned in the rejection list has been committed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not drawn any line on the OMR sheet and as such, the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer for such fault, which has not been committed by him. It is also submitted that the petitioner has got 232 marks in the preliminary examination, which is higher than the last selected candidate and as such his result should be declared.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-JPSC submits that the OMR sheets of the candidates were to be evaluated through the OMR scanning machine and as such in the admit card itself it was instructed that the incomplete/incorrect filling/shadowing of the bubbles on OMR answer sheet will be the sole responsibility of the candidate. It is further submitted that in the OMR sheet of General Studies-II, the petitioner did not properly shadow the bubbles of roll number column and there is one straight line drawn on the OMR sheet due to which the answer sheet of General Studies Paper-II of the petitioner could not be scanned by the OMR scanning machine and as such the same was rejected. It is also submitted that the OMR Sheet of the petitioner was rejected due to the mistake committed by the petitioner himself and as such the writ petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC put reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in L.P.A. No. 144 of 2014 (Ajit Kumar Gope & Ors. vs. Chairman, JPSC & Anr.) and W.P.S. No. 5803 of 2016 wherein the prayer of the petitioners for declaring their result in spite of the discrepancies in the OMR sheet was rejected.

5. Heard the learned couns