The court upheld the rejection of candidature due to non-compliance with mandatory conditions in the OMR answer sheet, affirming the limited supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the communication of rejection of the claim for acceptance of their candidature in the preliminary exam test conducted for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division, under the State Judicial Services, notified in terms of advertisement no. 22/2023.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, as under.

3. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short ‘JPSC’) vide advertisement no. 22 of 2023 dated 14.08.2023, advertised vacancies for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division in the Jharkhand Judicial Service. The JPSC called for applications from desirous and eligible candidates for recruitment to the said post. In pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioners filled their application forms through online application system provided on the website of the commission within the applicable time frame. The petitioners’ candidature was found to be complete with the requirement advertised by the Commission. As such, the petitioners were issued provisional admit cards for appearing in the PT Exam. The Exam was scheduled on 10.03.2024.

4. Thereafter, the petitioners appeared at their respective examination centers for exam. They were served with a copy of the question booklet and the OMR answer sheet at the centre. The question booklet contained certain instructions on its cover page. The operative instructions for filling of information on the OMR answer sheet was to be provided on the OMR answer sheet itself. The petitioners proceeded to fill up the necessary information including their roll numbers in the space provided in the OMR answer sheet. The petitioner no. 1 while darkening the circle for the third digit of her roll number, her pen brushed against the circle for the fourth digit of her roll number.

5. The petitioner no. 1 thereafter was assured by the Invigilator that the minor brushing of the pen on the said spot did not constitute a mistake/wrong. The petitioner no. 1 was instructed that she should ignore the brushing and proceed to darken the circle on the correct spot. Similarly, the petitioner no. 2, while darkening the circle for the first digit of her roll number, her pen brushed on the circle. She also informed the invigilator for same and invigilator assured that the same did not constitute a mistake.

6. On 13.05.2024, the Commission released the corrected and revised answer key for the PT Exam. Thereafter, the Commission published the result for the PT Exam on their website. On the same day, the cut-off marks for different categories were also notified. The petitioners did not find their roll numbers in the result declared by the Commission. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, the petitioners are before this Court by filing this writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in course of argument, has admitted that the only reason for rejection of candidature is that there is some brushing in the OMR Sheet at the time of furnishing the details over there.

8. It has been contended that the said error is being considered to be an error is minor and for that reason, the rejection of candidature cannot be said to be just and proper. The authority, without taking into consideration the same, has rejected the candidature of the petitioners, hence, this writ petition.

9. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JPSC has submitted that OMR Sheet has been rejected due to wrong bubbling in the relevant circle of the roll number.

10. It has been contended that since there is error in filling up of the relevant circle in the roll number and if in that count, the system based upon the particular software, has rejected the candidature, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error in the process of scrutinization/selection.

11. This Court has heard the learned