AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No. 1 of 2019:
This interlocutory application has been filed for recall of an order dated 26.09.2019, whereby this Court has imposed a cost of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited in the account of Patna High Court Legal Aid Committee by the Respondent Bihar Staff Selection Commission. The reason why the Court was constrained to impose the cost, has been elaborately recorded in the said order, noticing casual and cavalier manner in which the Commission was found conducting this case.
I do not find any merit in the application. This Application is, accordingly, dismissed.
CWJC 9123 of 2019:
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Sub Inspector of Police in response to an advertisement No. 511 dated 09.03.2019 issued by Bihar Staff Selection Commission. A written test was held for the purpose of selection in question in July, 2017. The written examination was a multiple choice type test and the answers were required to be marked on an OMR sheet. The petitioner did appear at the examination. He was shown to scored marks in different papers of the test, except the 'Economics' paper. His said paper was rejected on the ground that roll number was wrongly entered by him in digit and bubbled, in the OMR sheet of the said subjects, as is evident from Annexure-3 of the writ application (at page 26). The petitioner has grievance against said action of the Respondents. According to him, on such technical ground, his answer sheet ought not to have been rejected. Hence this writ application.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Commission, reliance has been placed on clause 16 of the instructions of the booklet which stipulated that in case a candidate did not abide by the instructions given in the OMR answer-sheet, his answer sheet shall be liable to be rejected. One of the instructions required that the roll number on the Admit Card had two parts; the first part being the alphabet was to be written within the single rectangular place of OMR answer-sheet and the concerned alphabet, circle below should be darkened/bubbled. The second part consisting of digits were to be written in figure in the side boxes. Roll number consisted of five digits and all of the five digits including 'zero' were to be written. This instruction was explained with illustration.
It has been stated further in the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not mention 'zero' of his roll number and whereas he should have entered into 'P07439' as his roll number in OMR answer sheet, he entered 'P7439' instead. This was the reason why the petitioner's OMR answer sheet of the Economics paper was rejected, in the light of clear stipulation in clause 4 and clause 16 of the instructions in the OMR answer sheet.
These facts are not in dispute. Since the petitioner himself failed to comply with the mandatory instructions mentioned in the OA mark sheet, the petitioner cannot have a grievance if his answer sheet of 'Economics' paper has been rejected for being evaluated.
In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed.