Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.
Manoj Kumar and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondent
WRIT-A No. 20396, 21469 of 2019, 162 of 2020
Decided On : 14-02-2020
Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Rules, 1998 – Rule 12(3) – Writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned result / select list dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure -5 to the writ petition) declared / published by the respondent no. 2 – A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to evaluate OMR sheets of the petitioners – A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to declare result of the petitioners and also call for interview and further selection be made in accordance with procedure as provided, after declaration of the result of the petitioners –Held, Candidate correctly fills up the mandatory information in Part-I of the OMR Answer sheet, does not write or mark on his answer paper outside the demarcated area and hands over the answer sheet to the Invigilator before leaving the examination hall, then subject to instruction no. 11, the Part-II of the OMR Answer sheet bearing answers to the questions of the subject opted in Part-I, has to be evaluated in terms of Rule 12(3) of the Rules, 1998 – Directions to the respondent no. 3 to evaluate OMR Answer sheet of such petitioners who have answered in Part-II of the OMR Answer sheet the questions of the two subjects opted by them, but inadvertently also marked one or two circles of another subject. Those petitioners who are found successful in the aforesaid written examination, shall be called for interview. Thereafter, their results shall be declared in accordance with law – Directions issued – Petition disposed of. (Paras 27, 28 and 29)
Facts of the Case
Writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned result / select list dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure -5 to the writ petition) declared / published by the respondent no. 2 – A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to evaluate OMR sheets of the petitioners – A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to declare result of the petitioners and also call for interview and further selection be made in accordance with procedure as provided, after declaration of the result of the petitioners.
Finding of the Court
Candidate correctly fills up the mandatory information in Part-I of the OMR Answer sheet, does not write or mark on his answer paper outside the demarcated area and hands over the answer sheet to the Invigilator before leaving the examination hall, then subject to instruction no. 11, the Part-II of the OMR Answer sheet bearing answers to the questions of the subject opted in Part-I, has to be evaluated in terms of Rule 12(3) of the Rules, 1998 – Directions to the respondent no. 3 to evaluate OMR Answer sheet of such petitioners who have answered in Part-II of the OMR Answer sheet the questions of the two subjects opted by them, but inadvertently also marked one or two circles of another subject. Those petitioners who are found successful in the aforesaid written examination, shall be called for interview. Thereafter, their results shall be declared in accordance with law – Directions issued.
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prakash Chandra Tripathi and other learned counsels for the petitioners and Sri A.K.S. Parihar, learned standing counsel for the State respondents.
Facts:-
2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that pursuant to advertisement No. 01 of 2016 inviting applications for recruitment on the post of Trained Graduate Teachers, the petitioners submitted applications. They were issued admits cards. They appeared in the written examination. The OMR (Optical Mark Reader) Answer sheet for written examination was in two parts, briefly as under:-
(i) Name of the two subjects attempted.
(ii) Test booklet series.
(iii) Roll Number.
(iv) Subject Code.
(v) Questions booklet series.
Part-II
(i) Questions on four subjects, namely Geography, History, Economics and Civics in separate blocks each containing 63 questions with multiple answer choice.
3. The Answer sheet contained instructions / advisory which are reproduced below:-
1. Use only Black Ball Point Pen for darkening the circles.
2. Candidate must fill the Roll No., Subject Code and
3. Signature should be made within the box.
4. Darken only one circle for each question out of the 4 options as explained below:-
Question Booklet series (A,B,C or D) in the answer sheet failing which his candidature will be automatically be rejected.
Correct Method of Marking Response
…........................
Wrong Method of Marking Response
…........................
5. Marking should be DARK and should completely fill the circle so that letter/ number inside the circle is not visible.
6. Make marks only in the spaces provided. Please do not make any stray mark on the answer sheet.
7. Rough work, if any must be done on the specified place of the question booklet.
8. Do not fold the Answer Sheet. It may lead to difficulty in evaluation.
9. Answer sheet will be processed by electronic means. Invalidation of Answer Sheet due to incomplete / incorrect filling will be the sole responsibility of the candidate.
10. Please handover the Answer Sheet to the invigilator before leaving the examination hall.
11. Overwriting or erasing will be treated as multiple marking and no mark for that question would be awarded
12. Please do not right or mark on this answer paper outside the demarcated areas. It may invalidate your Answer Sheet.
13. Please see the method of marking your Subject Code, Roll No. and Booklet Series.”
4. The selection for the aforesaid recruitment is being carried by Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj, under the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Rules, 1998 (herein after referred to as the Rules, 1998). Rule 12(3) of the Rules, 1998 is relevant for the purposes of present controversy which is reproduced below:-
5. In paragraph 15 of the leading writ petition, the petitioners have stated that the OMR Answer sheet consist of two parts. This fact has been admitted in the counter affidavit of Sri Naval Kishore, Deputy Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj. Certain important averments have been made by the petitioners in paragraphs 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 25 & 27 of the writ petition which have been replied by the respondent Board in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit. The averments made in paragraph 28 of the writ petition have been replied by the respondent Board in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. All these paragraphs of the writ petition and the counter affidavit are reproduced below:-
| Writ Petition | Counter affidavit |
| “16. That the Petitioner have appeared in the examination an | |
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
