DHAEMENDRA JAIN Vs. STATE OF CG
LAWS(CHH)-2005-9-20
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on September 19,2005

Dhaemendra Jain Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF CG Respondents

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]... on 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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.