AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Delivered by: Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A)
Heard Shri Sunil, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Atul Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the respondents.
The instant Original Application, under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, has been filed by the applicant,seeking following reliefs:
“(a)To set aside the impugned communication dated 16.10.2023 passed by the respondent No. 2 the candidature of the applicant has been rejected in the selection of group D post on account of having used whitener/eraser in the OMR sheet of the written examination held on 27.10.2013 pursuant to advertisement dated 11.08.2012 published in the employment notice No. 01/2012 issued by the respondent.
(b)To issue an order or direction to the respondents to call the applicant for appearing in document verification cum medical examination on account of having been passed in the Physical Efficiency Test held on 03.03.2014.
(c)To issue an order or direction to the respondents to declare the final result of applicant in the selection of Group D post, in case applicant is declared qualified in document verification cum medical examination in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.08.2012 published in the employment notice No. 01/2012 by the respondents.
(d)Issue an order or direction in the appropriate nature which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(d)Award the cost of the Original application to the applicants.”
The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that an advertisement dated 11.08.2012 bearing Notification no. 01/2012 was floated by the respondents for filling up the post of Group-D. The applicant, being eligible applied for the said post under the OBC category. Thereafter, he appeared in the written test, which was scheduled to be held on 27.10.2013, and was declared successful in the said exam as per the result declared on 30.01.2014. Subsequently, he was called for Physical Efficiency Test and he appeared in the said test on 03.03.2014, wherein he was declared successful. Subsequently, the respondents scheduled documents verification cum medical examination in March, 2014, but the applicant was not called for the same.
Thereafter, in 2014, the respondents declared the final result, however, the name of the applicant was not found in the selected final list. Aggrieved by the same, he approached before the respondents in order to get his document verification and medical examination done by the respondent, but no heed was paid.
Subsequently, the applicant moved an application under RTI Act, 2005 on 08.09.2023 before the Public Information officer, Northern Central Railway, Head Quarter, Subedarganj, Prayagraj. In reply, it was informed to the applicant that result had already been declared and no further action was remaining. The applicant was further informed that he had obtained 78.57 marks and overall rank of the applicant was 227 and the cut off marks for the OBC category was 70.03. Thereafter, the applicant approached the respondents by way of representation dated 06.10.2023 for consideration of case and to provide the reasons about his non-selection of Group D post. Subsequently, the Chairman issued the communication dated 16.10.2023 stating therein that the applicant was not selected on the ground that he had used the whitener/eraser in his OMR sheet of the written examination and as such, his candidature was rejected.
It is the contention of the applicant that if he had used whitener/eraser in the OMR sheet, then he would not have been called for Physical Efficiency Test. Feeling aggrieved by the actions of the respondents, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the instant Original Application challenging his cancellation of candidature.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the averments made by the applicant and have stated that at the time of shortlisting of candidates for documents verification and sending for medical test, the competent authority of recruitment cell found that the applicant had used whitener/eraser in question nos. 41 and 85 and the answer of question no. 56 was not properly filled in his OMR sheet. This act was in direct violation of the instructions clearly printed on the OMR answer sheet, as well as the provisions outlined in column 4 & 10 of the OMR sheet and also the terms and conditions of the Advertisement. Further, the applicant has approached the respondents with regard to his grievances vide his representation dated 06.10.2023, which was received in the respondents’ office on 09.10.2023 and was subsequently replied to vide letter dated 16.10.2023. The respondents have also submitted that similarly placed candidates had approached this Tribunal in Original Application No. 559/2014 which was dismissed vide order dated 18.01.2024 and lately the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ A No. 4811/2026 (Ratnakar Verma vs Union of India & Ors) also dismissed the case of a candidate and as such, the instant Original Application is also liable to be dismissed.
From the perusal of the record it reflects that vide order dated 07.01.2025 on the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the case was fixed for 19.02.2025 and learned counsel was directed to file rejoinder affidavit in the meantime. However, in spite of several opportunities granted to the learned counsel for the applicant, no rejoinder affidavit has been filed in the matter.
We have considered the submissions so raised by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
As the facts of the case have already been narrated above, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. It is not in dispute that the applicant was allowed to participate in the written examination and physical efficiency test. However, during the scrutiny of the OMR answer sheet, it was found that the applicant had used whitener/eraser in question Nos. 41 and 85 and the answer of question No. 56 was not properly filled in his OMR sheet. The OMR answer sheet and the examination instructions (specifically clauses 4, 5, and 10) explicitly prohibit any changes to marked answers. Once a bubble is darkened, no changes are permitted. These instructions also state that non-compliance would render the OMR sheet as invalid and will not be evaluated. For better appreciation of the matter, the relevant instruction annexed with OMR (appended as page 41 {instructions} and 42 {instructions for candidates} of Counter affidavit) are reproduced as under :-
“Instructions
….
4.Your OMR answer sheet shall be evaluated through electronic scanning process. Incomplete and incorrect entries may render your OMR answer sheet invalid.
5.Carefully fill up all the necessary particulars in the OMR answer sheet because change of OMR answer sheet is not permitted.
10.Candidates are to answer questions from the multiple choice of answers A, B, C or D. Select the right answer to each question and darken the correct circle on the OMR answer sheet. Once darkened, changes are not permitted.
13.Failure in adhering to the above instructions will render your OMR answer sheet as invalid and it will not be evaluated….
Instructions for candidates
…….
4.Only blue/black ball pen may be used to write the answer on answer sheet and not other pen/pencil. Change of answer by erasing, cutting or overwriting is not permitted.
12.Violation of these instructions shall lead to cancellation of candidature.
15.Candidates may note that in the event of his being found ineligible at any stage of recruitment process or declaration given in application form being found to be incorrect or incomplete, the Railway Administration have right to reject his candidature or even to terminate his services, if appointed.….”
Further, the notification in question also mentioned the detailed instructions. The relevant instructions are reproduced as under:
“16. Selection Procedure
…………
iv) The appointment of the candidate will be subject to their being found suitable after antecedent verification and medically fit as per rules. The selection of candidate by RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL/NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY does not confer any right to the candidate for appointment RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL/NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY is not responsible for any inadvertent error.
NOTE:-
Admission to the examination center is provisional as the applications are fully scrutinized later. In case a candidate does not fulfill the entire requirement prescribed in Employment Notice, his/her candidature is liable to be rejected even at a later stage, when deficiency is noticed. Mere issue of call letter for appearing in written exam by RAILWAY RECRUITMENT CELL, does not confer any right for any subsequent stage of recruitment process or placing his/her name on the panel…..”
Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ A No. 4811/2026 (Ratnakar Verma vs Union of India & Ors) wherein, while mentioning the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Hemalathaa (supra), the appeal of the applicant was dismissed observing as under:
15.The importance of the instructions and the effect of its violation has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Hemalathaa (supra)
wherein it was inter alia laid down as under:
“7.We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent. The Instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to be strictly complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission.
8.The High Court after summoning and perusing the answer sheet of the Respondent was convinced that there was infraction of the Instructions. However, the High Court granted the relief to the Respondent on a sympathetic consideration on humanitarian ground. The judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent in in Taherakhatoon (D) By LRs vs. Salambin Mohammad and Chandra Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another in support of her arguments that we should not entertain this appeal in the absence of any substantial questions of law are not applicable to the facts of this case.
9.In spite of the finding that there was no adherence to the Instructions, the High Court granted the relief, ignoring the mandatory nature of the Instructions.It cannot be said that such exercise of discretion should be affirmed by us, especially when such direction is in the teeth of the Instructions which are binding on the candidates taking the examinations.
10.In her persuasive appeal, Ms. Mohana sought to persuade us to dismiss the appeal which would enable the Respondent to compete in the selection to the post of Civil Judge. It is a well-known adage that, hard cases make bad law. In Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, Venkataramiah, J., held that: "
13... exercise of such power of moderation is likely to create a feeling of distrust in the process of selection to public appointments which is intended to be fair and impartial. It may also result in the violation of the principle of equality and may lead to arbitrariness. The cases pointed out by the High Court are no doubt hard cases, but hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law. In the circumstances, we lean in favour of a strict construction of the Rules and hold that the High Court had no such power under the Rules."
11.Roberts, CJ. in Caperton v. A.T. Massey held that:
"Extreme cases often test the bounds of established legal principles. There is a cost to yielding to the desire to correct the extreme case, rather than adhering to the legal principle. That cost has been demonstrated so often that it is captured in a legal aphorism: "Hard cases make bad law."
12.After giving a thoughtful consideration, we are afraid that we cannot approve the judgment of the High Court as any order in favour of the candidate who has violated the mandatory Instructions would be laying down bad law. The other submission made by Ms. Mohana that an order can be passed by us under Article 142 of the Constitution which shall not be treated as a precedent also does not appeal to us.
13.In view of the aforementioned, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.” (emphasis supplied)
16.Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that the instructions issued are mandatory and have to be strictly complied with as strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the instructions is of paramount importance. The relief granted by the High Court contrary to the instructions was not affirmed indicating that the directions by the High Court were in the teeth of the instructions which were binding on the candidates taking the examinations. Reference was also made to well known adage that, ‘hard cases make bad law’ and that any order in favour of the candidate who has violated the mandatory instructions would be laying down bad law. The Court further refused to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
17.The above emphasis made by Hon’ble Supreme Court for strict adherence to the instructions clearly applies to the present case as well. So far as the plea raised by counsel for the petitioner that the answer sheet in fact was evaluated and the petitioner was awarded marks higher than the selected candidates is concerned, once the instructions as stipulated have been violated and as a result thereof, the petitioner was found ineligible and his result was not declared, merely because under the Act of 2005, the petitioner obtained the marks awarded to him, are of no use, once on account of violation of instructions, he lost right to get his answer sheet evaluated.
18.It would also be relevant to notice that the order impugned was passed on 11.02.2019 rejecting the claim for appointment, however the O.A. was filed on 09.02.2024 i.e. after a gap of about five years in relation to a recruitment which was initiated by an advertisement No.1 of 2012 and the same was long over.
19.In view of above fact situation, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
20.There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. (emphasis supplied)
The act of tampering with or erasing marked answers on the OMR sheet is a serious violation of instructions, as it undermines the integrity of the examination process. Once a candidate registers for, and voluntarily participates in an examination, he is legally bound by its notifications, instructions and cutoff criteria. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the instructions is of paramount importance. The applicant, having participated in the examination and violated the specific notified instructions of the examination, cannot claim a vested right for consideration of his candidature.
In view of the foregoing discussions and the judicial pronouncements, we find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the instant Original Application stands dismissed.
Interim Order, if any, stands discharged.
All the related MAs stand disposed of.