Case Background
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Ashutosh Kumar heard the petition filed by two aspirants who appeared for a public post examination. The petitioners' OMR sheets were rejected because they either left bubbles blank or did not appropriately darken them, rendering the sheets unreadable by the evaluation machines. As a result, the candidates were excluded from the selection process.
Petitioners' Arguments
The petitioners contended that minor errors in filling the OMR sheets should not have led to their complete exclusion. They argued that the evaluation agency should have provided an opportunity to correct the mistakes. The counsel for the petitioners emphasized that the candidates were meritorious and exclusion from the selection process would adversely affect their career prospects.
Court's Rationale
The court, however, disagreed with the petitioners' arguments. It highlighted that the instructions and guidelines for filling the OMR sheets were clear and mandatory. The court pointed out that the instructions explicitly warned candidates that improperly marked sheets could disrupt the evaluation process. The court emphasized that strict adherence to these guidelines was crucial to preserve the sanctity of the selection process.
Precedent and Legal Basis
In its decision, the court referred to the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Jagdish Chandra Jat, where a similar issue was addressed, and no correction in the OMR sheet was allowed. The court also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Tamil Nadu and Others vs. G. Hemalathaa and Another, which underscored the importance of mandatory compliance with issued instructions. The Supreme Court had observed that high courts do not have the power under Article 226 to modify or relax these instructions, as such actions could create distrust in the selection process.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis and precedents, the Rajasthan High Court denied the petitioners' request to correct their OMR sheets. The court held that allowing such corrections would not only delay the selection process but also make it vulnerable to misuse. The petition was dismissed, reinforcing the necessity for candidates to follow examination guidelines meticulously to ensure a fair and transparent selection process.
Citation
Payal Soni & Anr. v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 177
This judgment highlights the judicial emphasis on procedural compliance and the role of strict guidelines in maintaining the integrity of public examinations. It serves as a reminder for aspirants to adhere strictly to examination instructions to avoid disqualification.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.