DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. - (1.) THE prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the list, wherein, zero marks have been awarded to the petitioner and also for issuance of direction to the respondents to evaluate the 'OMR' answer sheets of paper I and II of Tier - II of the Combined Graduate Level Examination -2012.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case, as mentioned in the petition, are that the Staff Selection Commission i.e respondent No.1 was assigned the responsibility for recruitment of Group C (non -technical) and Group B (non -gazetted ­ both technical and non -technical) posts and for that, a notice was published in "The Employment News/Rozgar Samachar" dated 24.03.2012, whereby, the On -line or Off -line Applications were invited from the eligible candidates for recruitment to different posts in various Ministries/Departments/Offices/ Cadre under Government of India for which the graduation from recognized University was the minimum educational qualification. The petitioner belongs to a Backward Class and was eligible for applying to the said post. Hence, she submitted an on -line application form. She was assigned Roll No.1601030114, Ticket/Seat No.1020376 for Tier -I ­ Written Examination. Accordingly, she appeared in the examination and was declared qualified for Tier -II Examination. The result of the said examination was declared on 18.10.2012 and her name was not there in the merit list. Subsequently, it came to her notice that her 'OMR' Answer Sheets were not evaluated and zero marks were awarded on account of the fact that while marking her Roll Number in the prescribed column on the OMR Sheet in Paper -I, she had darkened boxes bearing numbers Rs.0601030114' in stead of Rs.1601030114'. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ticket Number, Name of the Examination, Date of Birth and Test Form Number were also required to be written at the relevant places apart from Roll Number and the same were correctly mentioned by the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner incorporated all the details as required but inadvertently, she darkened box marked zero before the roll number so assigned and because of that reason, zero marking was done. The petitioner was illegally denied opportunity to compete for public employment despite being eligible and meritorious, whereas, there was no intention on the part of the petitioner in any manner either to play fraud or have some ulterior motive. It was an inadvertent mistake which might have been committed because of examination stress. Learned counsel also submits that no opportunity, whatsoever, was given to the petitioner and the action of the respondents was contrary to the principles of natural justice. A representation, in this regard, was also made to the respondents but no action was taken thereupon. Learned counsel also submits that the action of the respondents is not only arbitrary but also unjustified as well. In case, there was error in marking or coding of a numeral of her Roll No. at one place on the OMR Answer Sheets, it cannot be presumed that the identity of the candidate was doubtful specially when the roll number was rightly written in numeral form. The petitioner should not be penalized for the mistake which was accidental and unintentional and because of that reason, the career of the petitioner is at stake. Learned counsel also submits that the conduct of the petitioner cannot be termed as malpractice in any manner or use of unfair means.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in CWP NO.13730 of 2012 titled as Rohit Kumar vs Union of India, decided on 27.07.2012 as well as the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case State of A.P. and another vs A. Vijayalakshmi and another 1983 AIR (A.P.) 321, in support of his contentions.;