Point of Law: Education Law - Reject answer sheet because solitary mistake, that is with regard to erroneous darkening/ filling of the circles/ bubbles, relating to their Roll number, in OMR sheet – Whether justified - Once instructions were clear and were to apply universally to all candidates, if error as per the instructions is fatal, a hands-off approach by Writ Court is justified.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Misra, J.

1. This intra court appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Single Judge, dated 7.12.2019, passed in Writ-A No.19486 of 2019 by which the writ petition filed by the appellants along with 36 others for a direction upon the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj (for short the Board) to declare their result of written examination held, for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher, has been dismissed.

2. In the office report dated 04.02.2020, the appeal is reported to be beyond time by 29 days. However, it appears, there were other defects also, which were removed later.

3. As in the meantime Covid-19 pandemic had set in, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay. The delay condonation application No.1 of 2020 is thus allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Office to assign regular number to the appeal.

4. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in a nutshell, are that the writ petitioners (i.e. who filed Writ A No.19486 of 2019), out of which four are before us as appellants, had not correctly darkened/ filled the bubbles/ circles of the OMR sheets, either in respect of their roll number or booklet series number or both, even though it was mandated by the instructions provided therein. Consequently, their OMR sheets were not evaluated. The appellants 2 to 4 before us are those who had filled their roll number correctly in numerals, in the rectangular box provided in the OMR sheet, but had not correctly darkened/ filled the bubbles/ circles below to confirm the roll number filled in the rectangular box. Whereas appellant no.1, in addition to the above-noted mistake committed by the appellants 2 to 4, had also committed a mistake in respect of filling the Booklet series number. As a consequence whereof, their answers in the OMR sheets were not evaluated. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing that the controversy in issue is squarely covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Appeal No.834 of 2013 and Special Appeal Defective No. 117 of 2014.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants; the learned standing counsel for the respondent no.1; and Sri A.K.S. Parihar for the respondent no.2 (the Board).

6. Before we proceed to notice and evaluate the submissions made before us, it would be appropriate to examine as to what was held in the two decisions relied by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. In Special Appeal No.834 of 2013 (Ram Manohar Yadav v. State of U.P. & others, decided on 30.05.2013), the appellant who had applied for selection on the post of a teacher had not filled the online application form correctly. He applied for rectification of the mistake which was not accepted. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition which was dismissed. Aggrieved therewith, he filed Special Appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. While dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench observed: “if prospective teacher can not even correctly fill up the simple on line application form for his employment, it is obvious what he is going to teach, if appointed. There are certain decisions cited on this issue. But none of them deal with this aspect whether under the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India such incompetent persons should be allowed to play with the future of the next generation.”

7. In Special Appeal Defective No.117 of 2014 (Km. Richa Pandey v. Examination Regulatory Authority and another, decided on 18.02.2014), the petitioner had not filled the column of language in which she had attempted answers in the OMR answer sheet. The learned Single Judge found that in absence of mention of language in which the answers were attempted, OMR sheet would not be acceptable for evaluation. The Division Bench, on appeal, called for the records and found that there were clear instructions that if requisite columns are not filled correctly, the answers will not be evaluated. Thus,