DHAEMENDRA JAIN Vs. STATE OF CG
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
STATE OF CG
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugned communication/decision dated 21-07-2005 (Annexure P-4) passed by
the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva Ayog, Raipur- respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner
was disqualified due to mentioning of the identification mark in the first answer sheet.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner, pursuant to advertisement No. 02/2004/Examination dated 19-08-2004 applied for Judicial Services Main Examination, 2004 for the appointment to the post of Civil Judges Class-II. Clause
12(d) in the advertisement prohibits mentioning of roll number and/or name elsewhere except at given place, as the same would be treated as identification
mark. It was further provided that the candidature of the examination of the
candidate would be cancelled without notice to the candidate. In the admit card
for Judicial Services Main Examination, 2004 Clause 3 of the instructions and
guidelines further provided that writing of name and roll number in the answer
sheet at any place other than the prescribed one and attaching any document or
writing in any other colour, except in blue or black ink pen or dot pen would be
treated as identification mark and the result thereof would be cancelled. Clause 4
- identification Mark- in instructions and guidelines for the examinees stated in
the second page of the answer sheet provides that the examinee would mention
his roll number at prescribed place. The examinee would not mention his roll
number or his name or his address which may indicate as identification, any where
in the answer sheet. The examinee would further not annex any material with the
answer sheet. The examinee would use blue or black ink pen or dot pen and not
any other pen or ink. In case the candidate contravenes the above stated
instructions, the examination of the candidate would be cancelled. The petitioner
received communication/decision dated 21-07-2005 (Annexure P-4) whereby it
was stated that the petitioner had put an identification mark in violation of Clause
Of the instructions in the admit card, Clause 4 Of the instructions in the answer sheet and Clause 12(d) Of the advertisement. Thus, the petitioner was declared as
disqualified for Judicial Services Main Examination, 2004. The petitioner submitted
his reply on 30-07-2005 (Annexure P-5) seeking more details about the
communication/decision dated 21-07-2005.
3. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed this writ petition under Article 226 Of the Constitution Of India praying that the communication/decision dated 21-07-2005 (Annexure P-4) be quashed and the respondents be directed to evaluate the answer sheet Of the petitioner and to further declare the result thereOf.
The respondents filed their reply submitting that the petitioner has violated not only
the stated instructions/guidelines in the communication/decision dated 21-07-2005,
but further Clause 3 Of the instructions/guidelines in the answer sheet, which provided
that the examinee would not write his roll number any where except in the prescribed
place and would perform rough work on the last page Of the answer sheet, i.e.
page No. 24 only. This further provided that in addition, writing any thing or
copying question paper is punishable. Respondents submitted that the petitioner
by writing religious words in the last rough page has violated Clause 3 as provided
in the answer sheet and as such the petitioner was rightly declared as disqualified.
(3.) MR . Kanak Tiwari, learned Senior counsel with Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed violation
of any of the clauses as stated in the communication/decision dated 21-07-2005.
The petitioner by writing/scribbling
...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...
the last page i.e. captioned as "rough work" has not violated even the instruction
No. 3 as stated in the reply of the respondent No. 3. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had not written his roll number,
name or address at any other place except at the prescribed place. The petitioner
had not annexed any material which could be treated as identification mark and
writing name of the god at the last page i.e. rough page, i.e. page No. 24, which is
not meant for valuation, had performed his religious duty not with the purpose to
mention any identification mark. The last page was not supposed to be evaluated
as per the instructions. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it
may be a bonafide mistake but it does not come under mischief of identification. If
the petitioner's candidature is rejected and he is declared for the judicial Services
Examination, 2004, as disqualified, he would suffer irreparable loss and as such
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed
and respondents be directed to declare the result of the petitioner and allow him to
participate in the interview, if found qualified for the same.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.