Partly allowed

U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board v. State of U.P. and 100 Others

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2022SPLAD/446/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed appeals regarding candidates rejected for attempting exam questions in a subject they did not select. Relying on a Division Bench judgment, the Court held that errors in subject options are not condonable and rejected the Board's appeals while dismissing the candidates' appeals as they could not interfere with completed evaluation processes.

What did the court decide?

Board appeals allowed; specific Writ orders setting aside rejections set aside leading to candidates' writ dismissal. Candidates' appeals dismissed.

U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board Vs… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Chief Justice's Court Serial Nos. 303 & 4

¶2

Special Appeal Defective No. 446 of 2020 with connected Appeals

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶4

*******

¶5

(1) SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 446 of 2020 (Arising out of Writ A No. 20396 of 2019)

¶6

Pronounced on: March 08, 2022

¶7

U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board ….. Appellant

¶8

Through:- Mr. Shailendra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Rai, Advocate

¶9

v/s

¶10

State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents

¶11

Through:Mr. Ramanand Pandey, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shivendu Ojha, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 101

¶12

With

¶13

(2) SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 55 of 2021

¶14

(Arising out of Writ-A No. 11885 of 2020)

¶15

Manoj Kumar Yadav ….. Appellant

¶16

Through:Mr. Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shivendu Ojha, Advocate

¶17

v/s

¶18

The State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents

¶19

Through:Mr. Ramanand Pandey, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Shailendra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Rai, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3

¶20

With

¶21

2 SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 446 of 2020

¶22

(3) SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 481 of 2021

¶23

(Arising out of Writ-A No.16154 of 2021)

¶24

Sharad Yadav and others ….Appellants

¶25

Through :- Mr. Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shivendu Ojha, Advocate

¶26

v/s

¶27

The State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents Through:- Mr. Ramanand Pandey, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Shailendra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Rai, Advocate for respondent No. 2 With (4) SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 695 of 2021 (Arising out of Writ-A No. 2484 of 2020)

¶28

The Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board, Prayagraj ….. Appellant

¶29

Through:- Mr. Shailendra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Rai, Advocate

¶30

v/s

¶31

State of U.P. and another ….. Respondents

¶32

Through:- Mr. Ramanand Pandey, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shivendu Ojha, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶33

With

¶34

¶35

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 446 of 2020

¶36

(5) SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 818 of 2021

¶37

(Arising out of Writ-A No. 2484 of 2020)

¶38

The Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board Prayagraj ….. Appellant

¶39

Through:- Mr. Shailendra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Rai, Advocate

¶40

v/s

¶41

State of U.P. and others ….. Respondents

¶42

Through:- Mr. Ramanand Pandey, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shivendu Ojha, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 11

¶43

¶44

CORAM : HON’BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, JUDGE

¶45

ORDER

¶46

RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.

¶47

1 . This order will dispose of

¶48

Special Appeal Defective No. 446 of 2020,

¶49

Special Appeal Defective Nos. 55, 695 and 818 of 2021, Special Appeal No. 481 of 2021.

¶50

2 . The legal issues raised in the aforesaid appeals are common.

¶51

FACT

¶52

Special Appeal Defective No. 446 of 2020

¶53

3 . The present intra-court appeal has been filed by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) against the order dated February 14, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 20396 of 2019 , titled as Manoj

¶54

¶55

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 446 of 2020

¶56

Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and another , whereby the writ petition filed by the private respondents was disposed of with a direction to the appellant to evaluate the OMR Sheets of the respondents despite the fact that there was error in filling thereof. It was with reference to answering the questions of three subjects whereas the option was to be exercised only for two subjects.

¶57

Special Appeal Defective No. 55 of 2021

¶58

4 . The present intra-court appeal has been filed against the order dated December 15, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner was dismissed. In the case in hand, the claim of the appellant for permitting him to rectify the error in the OMR Sheet was declined by the learned Single Judge while referring to earlier Division Bench judgments of this Court dated February 5, 2014 in Special Appeal Defective No. 123 of 2014 , titled as Arti Verma Vs. State of U.P. and dated April 25, 2018 in Special Appeal No. 90 of 2018 , titled as Jai Karan Singh and others Vs. State of U.P .

¶59

Special Appeal No. 481 of 2021

¶60

5 . The present intra-court appeal has been filed against the order dated December 2, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners-appellants was dismissed. The prayer before the learned Single Judge was for quashing of the result/select list dated October 27, 2021. The appellants were applicants for the post of Assistant Teacher. Their candidature was rejected for the reason that they had wrongly filled their OMR Sheets.

¶61

Special Appeal Defective No. 695 of 2021

¶62

6 . The present intra-court appeal has been filed by the Board against the order dated February 18, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.2 (petitioner No.9

¶63

¶64

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 446 of 2020

¶65

in the writ petition) was allowed, relying upon the earlier order dated February 14, 2020 passed in Writ-A No. 20396 of 2019 , titled as Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and another with a direction to the appellant Board to evaluate the OMR Sheets of respondent No.2 and other petitioners therein.

¶66

Special Appeal Defective No. 818 of 2021

¶67

7 . The present intra-court appeal has been filed by the Board against the order dated February 18, 2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the private respondents was allowed, relying upon the earlier order dated February 14, 2020 passed in Writ-A No. 20396 of 2019 , titled as Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and another , with a direction to the appellant Board to evaluate OMR Sheets of the private respondents.

¶68

ISSUE

¶69

8 . The issues involved in the aforesaid Special Appeals are that, while appearing in the competitive examination and filling up the OMR Sheets in the subject of Social Science, out of four parts/subjects, namely Geography, History, Economics and Civics where specific instructions were given to the candidates to choose two subjects, whether they could attempt answers in three subjects and whether the same can be termed as a minor error and ignored.

¶70

SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES

¶71

9 . Learned counsel for the candidates submitted that the candidates had opted for two of the aforesaid subjects. However, questions in three subject were answered by blackening the specified spot in the OMR Sheets. The claim was sought to be made that it was by error. The questions in the two subjects, which had been opted by a candidate, should be evaluated, whereas the third one can be ignored. Further argument raised

¶72

¶73

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 446 of 2020

¶74

by learned counsel for the candidates is that there are two parts in the OMR Sheet. In case of error in first part, which contains vital information, the candidature can be rejected. However, any inadvertent error in the second part deserves to be ignored. In that as well, the option of subjects cannot be permitted to be changed, however, in case there is an attempt to answer the questions in any subjects beyond two subjects opted, evaluation be made only of the two opted subjects. All the candidates are not computer savvy and the mistake was inadvertent.

¶75

10 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the Board submitted that the entire system has been computerised to keep it out of the human intervention which, sometimes, results in manipulation. Even otherwise, where candidates are in lakhs, it is humanly impossible to evaluate the OMR Sheets without any error. It is well-known that the OMR Sheets, where the option is to blacken the specified spots for answering the questions, are evaluated through a software. Its programming cannot be changed to suit certain candidates, who are negligent or careless in filling up the OMR Sheets or answering the questions. The instructions to the candidates were specific, that in case of any error in filling up the OMR Sheets, their applications would be rejected. At this stage, the Agency, which was assigned the work of holding the test and evaluation of OMR Sheets, has already completed the job and it will not be possible to review the same. Consequently, the specific prayer for evaluation of the OMR Sheets should not be granted.

¶76

11 . It is further stated that uniform system is followed for evaluation of OMR Sheets. About ten thousand cases had been found where the applications were rejected on account of error in OMR Sheets though, before the Court, there may be few candidates. However, in case decision is taken to revise the instructions for evaluation of OMR Sheets, it will have large ramifications. The examination was held on March 8, 2019. The result

¶77

¶78

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 446 of 2020

¶79

was declared on October 25, 2019. The writ petitions were filed after the result was declared, whereas the candidates very well knew that they had committed error in filling up the relevant columns in OMR Sheets. The process of selection cannot be kept open for all times to come. Further, if the programming for evaluation of the OMR Sheets is changed for one type of error, as is sought to be pointed out by the candidates in the present set of cases, there may be other candidates having committed some different error. Total 69,078 candidates appeared in the examination. Out of the same, 3,662 candidates were declared qualified. These are three times the number of vacancies advertised. Out of 3,662 candidates, 1,099 candidates were selected and finally recommended for appointment on July 22, 2021 and September 30, 2021, respectively. Even institutions have also been allotted to them.

¶80

DISCUSSIONS

¶81

12 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record.

¶82

13 . The primary issue, which requires consideration in the present set of appeals, is as to whether the rejection of candidature of the candidates, who had attempted questions in a subject not selected by them, was legally sustainable. In the case in hand, while appearing in the competitive examination for selection as Assistant Teacher, in the subject of Social Science, there were four parts/subjects, namely Geography, History, Economics and Civics. Out of these the candidates had to opt for two subjects. The candidates opted for two subjects. However, while answering the questions by blackening the spots in the OMR Sheets, they had attempted questions in three subjects. As a result of which their applications were rejected. It is sought to be claimed as an error.

¶83

¶84

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 446 of 2020

¶85

14 . The argument raised is that the answers to the subjects selected by the candidates be evaluated, leaving the third one where wrongly certain questions have been answered. Identical argument was considered by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated January 27, 2022 in Special Appeal No. 33 of 2022 , titled as Vinay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others , and after dealing with various orders passed by this Court and relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, it has been opined that any error committed by a candidate, even if inadvertent, in filling up the OMR Sheet, cannot be condoned and his candidature is liable to be rejected, for which clear instructions had been issued.

¶86

15 . In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement by the Division Bench of this Court, there is no merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the candidates, that because of the error committed by them in answering the questions in third subject, which was not opted, their candidature should not be rejected.

¶87

16 . One additional argument sought to be raised in the present set of appeals by learned counsel for the candidates, was that the contents of Part-I in the OMR Sheet should be considered as mandatory and the error should not be condoned whereas Part-II should be treated as directory where any error committed by the candidates should be ignored or permitted to be corrected. Ignoring the questions in the subject which was not selected by candidates, the questions of two opted subjects should be evaluated. The argument, though seems to be attractive but is totally misconceived. The instructions as mentioned in the OMR Sheet, clearly provided that for any error, the application would be rejected. If the argument is taken to the logical end, there can be a case where answers given by candidates in any of the subjects selected by them may be wrong whereas in the subject not selected by them may be correct. They would then raise an argument that their choice of subjects was inadvertent. This

¶88

¶89

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 446 of 2020

¶90

option has not been given to candidates. In the process of recruitment, thousands of candidates appear. If, at this stage also, it is found that they are casual in their approach and could not properly go through the instructions, which are mandatory, their presence of mind and intelligence level can very well be imagined.

¶91

17 . Even otherwise, the re-evaluation of OMR Sheets of candidates, who had wrongly filled the columns therein, may not be possible after the result has been declared and the candidates have been recommended for appointment. It may entail change in the software, as a result of which the sanctity of the examination itself may be compromised.

¶92

CONCLUSION

¶93

18 . For the reasons mentioned above, Special Appeal Defective Nos. 446 of 2020, 695 and 818 of 2021 filed by the Board are allowed . The order dated February 14, 2020 passed in Writ-A No. 20396 of 2019 and the order dated February 18, 2020 passed in Writ-A No. 2484 of 2020 are set aside. As a consequence, the writ petitions filed by the private respondents/ candidates shall stand dismissed.

¶94

19 . Special Appeal Defective No. 55 of 2021 and Special Appeal No. 481 of 2021 filed by the candidates are dismissed .

¶95

20 . All miscellaneous applications in the aforesaid Special Appeals shall stand disposed of.

¶96

Allahabad (Piyush Agrawal, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.) March 08, 2022 AHA

¶97

Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No

U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board v. State of U.P. and 100 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board v. State of U.P. and 100 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devaki Nandan Shiksha Samiti Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Satendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mehkaur and Another Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Sharad Yadav and 17 Others Vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others

The Secretary Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board Prayagraj Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others