IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that candidates must strictly adhere to the instructions for filling OMR sheets, as deviations, even if minor, can result in disqualification, thereby maintaining the integrity of the examination process.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. PATHAK, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

Prayer

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a direction upon the respondents, in particular respondent-JPSC, to evaluate his Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) answer sheet of General Studies (Paper-I), which relates to appointment on Class-II posts pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2025 (Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination, 2023), so that he could appear in the Mains examination which is scheduled to be held from 22.06.2024 onwards, as the petitioner has obtained more marks than the cut off under the unreserved category as per his own calculation based on revised answer key uploaded by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission.

The Facts

3. Briefly stated, Advertisement No. 01/2024 was floated by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission inviting applications for Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination, 2023 from eligible candidates for appointment on Class-II posts. The petitioner being eligible in all respects applied for such appointment. Having found the application form of the petitioner to be in order, admit card was issued to appear on 17.03.2024 for preliminary examination for Paper-I and II i.e. General Studies. The petitioner did well and the petitioner was expecting that he might be declared successful in the preliminary examination. On 23.03.2024, the JPSC has published the model answer key and thereafter revised answer on 13.04.2024 and 16.04.2024 of both the papers. From verifying the revised answer key, petitioner came to know that he had obtained 292 marks. The final result of preliminary test was published on 22.04.2024, but name of the petitioner did not find place, though as per his calculation he has obtained more marks than the cut off. Being aggrieved, petitioner rushed to the office of JPSC and requested them to evaluate his OMR sheet properly, as he is apprehending that his OMR sheet might have been rejected on technical grounds. Upon inquiry, petitioner has been informed that an inadvertent mistake has been committed by him while bubbling the last digit of his roll number, resulting into rejection of OMR sheet. The petitioner further submitted a representation on 29.04.2024 requesting therein to evaluate his OMR sheet, as in earlier similar facts and circumstances in the 7th to 10th Civil Services Combined Examination, 2021, the OMR sheet of some of the candidates having the similar issue of bubbling, had been considered and they were given opportunity to appear in the mains examination. However, the same has yielded no fruitful result and the petitioner has been denied similar benefits. Being aggrieved, petitioner is constrained to knock the door of this Court. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Petitioner.

4. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel representing the petitioner vociferously argues that the case of the petitioner for re-evaluation of his OMR answer script has not been considered by the respondent-JPSC only on hyper technical ground. Learned counsel submits that in the OMR sheet of Paper-I, the petitioner mentioned his Roll No. 23186028 in the space provided under column correctly. However he mistakably darkened wrong bubble/circle in the column of Roll Number in the OMR sheet, i.e. instead of circle ‘8’, he darkened circle ‘0’. After realizing his mistake, in relation to paper-I, he corrected his mistake by darkening the correct digit ‘8’ in the column of the OMR sheet. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a meritorious candidate obtaining equal marks to the topper of the examination, is being debarred from appearing in the Mains Examination due to this technical and human error, which is impermissible in the eyes of law. He submits that only on technical ground, the non-evaluation of the answer sheet of the petitioner is arbitrary, unjust and action of the respondent-JPSC is fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel refers the case of similarly si