- (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State respondents.
(2.) It has been admitted in paragraph 15 of the writ petition that the petitioner has not darkened the circle in booklet series "D".
(3.) This Court considered similar matter and held by a judgment passed in Writ-A No. 445 of 2020 (Sukhvir Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another) decided on 27.1.2020, as under:- "1. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.P. Dube, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Mrityunjay Datta Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondent no.2 to check copy/ OMR sheet of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer (Hindi), bearing roll No.0304041506 and counting the marks. 3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that pursuant to advertisement No.01/2016, for recruitment on the post of assistant teacher in L.T. grade (also known as Trained Graduate Teacher), the petitioner applied and appeared in the examination. 4. In paragraph-17 of the writ petition, the petitioner has admitted that mistakenly he wrongly filled the roll number in the OMR sheet and, therefore, his copy has not been scrutinized. The writ petitions for similar relief sought by some petitioners, were dismissed by this Court. Reference in this regard may be had to the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.26173 of 2018 (Rajesh Kumar Yadav and 20 others v. State of U.P . and 2 others) on 17.12.2018 (Paragraph-5) wherein it has been held that if the instructions are properly read out as they are properly printed and the candidates commit mistake even while following the instructions, it would be a too much an interference in examination exercise. 5. In Special Appeal No.90 of 2018 (Jai Karan Singh and 52 others v. State of U.P . and 4 others), a Division Bench of this Court observed as under : "The error committed by the candidates cannot be said to be minor in nature. It is the Registration Number, Roll Number that determines identity of the candidates. The candidates who appeared in the examination were mature students and were to be appointed as Assistant Teachers in institution. They should have read the instructions that was issued time and again and should have correctly filled the entries relating to Roll Number, Registration Number, Question Booklet Series and Language attempted. The entries were, however inaccurately filled as a result of which the scanner has not been able to process the result. The learned Judge was, therefore, justified in dismissing the writ petitions. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed." 6. In Writ-A No.841 of 2018 (Kanchan Bala and 172 others v. State of U.P . and 4 others), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under : "23. The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and found that clear instructions were given in the first page of question booklet directing the candidates to correctly fill up the OMR sheet and any error committed by the candidate cannot be corrected by the authority. The petitioners could not successfully mark the circle/bubble on the answer sheet showing correct registration number, roll number, booklet series or language-II attempted. Consequently, the result of the petitioners have been declared as invalid registration number/roll number. After the declaration of the result in question, they have proceeded to make a request that the correction is required. It is too late in the day to make such request by the petitioners, inasmuch as, OMR sheet is examined by the computer on the basis of columns that have been filled up by an incumbent and, in view of this, once final result has been declared and there is no provision to carry out any correction in the OMR sheet, then no relief can be accorded to the petitioners, especially keeping in view the dictum of Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Arti Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others and the judgment of learned Single Judge in Ritu Chauhan's case (supra), wherein once the Division Bench as well as learned Single Judge had already rejected the similar arguments as well as the claim set up by the candidates appeared in the TET-2013, 2016 and 2017, then there is no reason or occasion for this Court to take a different view in the matter. 24. The Court is also conscious that in the garb of minor discrepancy for rectifying such human error in the OMR sheet, the Court cannot give any liberty to the respondent to intervene in the matter at this stage, which would also have very serious consequence for the fairness of entire selection. Coupled with the above, I am clearly of the view that the action taken by the respondent is neither arbitrary nor illegal. In such circumstances, it is not legally permissible to interfere with the decision of the respondent." 7. In Karnataka Public Service Commission and others v. B.M. Vijaya Shankar and others , AIR 1992 SC 952, this Court held that the Competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the Commission for public service in strict secrecy to get the best brain and that the instructions contained in the answer-sheet should be complied with in its letter and spirit. The relevant portion of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors. Vs. B. M. Vijaya Shankar and Ors., is reproduced below : "Competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the Commission for public service in strict secrecy to get the best brain. Public interest requires no compromise on it. Any violation of it should be visited strictly. Absence of any expectation of hearing in matters which do not affect any interest and call for immediate action, such as the present one, where it would have delayed declaration of list of other candidates which would have been more unfair and unjust are rare but well recognised exceptions to the rule of natural justice. It cannot be equated with where a student is found copying in the examination or an inference arises against him for copying due to similarity in answers of number of other candidates or he is charged with misconduct or misbehavior. Direction not to write roll number was clear and explicit. It was printed on the first page of every answer book. Once it was violated the issue of bonafide and honest mistake did not arise. Its consequences, even, if not provided did not make any difference in law. The action could not be characterised as arbitrary. It was not denial of equal opportunity. The reverse may be true." 8. Similar view has also been taken by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.1452 of 2019 ( Km. Bandana v. State of U.P. and another ), decided on 14.2.2019. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I have no difficulty to hold that the error committed by the petitioner cannot be said to be minor in nature. It is the registration number and roll number, that determines the identity of the candidates. The candidate who appeared in the examination for recruitment on the post of assistant teacher, is a mature person. The petitioner should have read the instructions and should have correctly filled the entries relating to roll number, registration number, question booklet etc. Admittedly, the petitioner has incorrectly filled roll number by blackening circle. In the OMR sheet it was clearly mentioned in Instruction no.15, that the candidates should carefully read particulars in the OMR sheet and if roll number or question book series is wrongly filled or any entry is not filled, then it shall not be evaluated. Despite these instructions well within the knowledge of the petitioner, he wrongly filled up roll number. such mistakes cannot be said to be minor in nature. If this Court permits such mistakes to be corrected and the instructions and rules framed to be followed, are allowed to be ignored where lacs of students are participating in the examination, this will lead to a situation where there will be no end to such exercise. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed." ;