MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. - (1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the official respondents in not correctly evaluating her answer-sheet/OMR sheet in the written examination that was conducted for appointment on the post of District Manager.
(2.) Petitioner applied for appointment on the post of District Manager with the Rajasthan State Food and Civil Supply Nigam Ltd., Jaipur. Petitioner as well as respondent No.3-Priyanka Saini both belongs to OBC category. While respondent No.3 was selected having 116.67 marks showing her name at Sr.No.84 in the merit list, petitioner was not selected having secured 108 marks at Sr.No.163, whereas she should have been placed at merit position No.124 if her answer-sheet/OMR sheet for Question Nos.77 to 100 has correctly been evaluated by the respondents, which information has been furnished by the respondents to the petitioner vide information dated 8/5/2012 sought by her under Right to Information Act, 2005. It is contended that had the correct evaluation was made, petitioner would have secured appointment quo respondent No.3. Learned counsel for petitioner has invited attention of the court to this effect towards copy of the OMR sheet filed along with information dated 8/5/2012 (Ann.7).
(3.) Shri V.D. Gathala, Additional Government Counsel for State-respondents No.1 and 2 has opposed the writ petition and argued that result was declared on 26/12/2011 wherein petitioner was shown to have secured 108 marks at Sr.No.163. Petitioner was provided a question-paper under D-Series. It was clearly mentioned in the OMR answer-sheet to follow the instructions as provided on the OMR answer-sheet as also on the admit card. Such instructions were meant to be strictly followed by the candidate while marking answers on OMR sheet. The instructions clearly provide that the candidate should give answer by clearly filling the blank space i.e. darkening the circle against the right answer. He is required to darken for only one option. It was also stipulated therein that the candidate is not allowed to change the answer once given by darkening the circle. Thus, the candidate was not allowed to erase either by blade or otherwise to change the answer, in other words, the candidate cannot change the option once have darkened the circle. Learned Additional Government Counsel submits that the examination was conducted through the agency namely; Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd. and comments were called from the said Corporation with regard to petitioner's OMR answer-sheet, which "according to OMR Technology Guidelines", apprised the official respondents three types of errors in OMR sheets resulted in faulty outputs viz. (i) OMR Reader Machine fails to read a particular sheet due to improper scaling of OMR sheets according to time line (may be due to defective cutting of OMR sheets), (ii) while reading the marked answers, OMR Reader comes across a 'mark', which may be fault in the paper, dirt or a poorly rubbed out mark or any other stray mark on the OMR sheet and (iii) OMR Reader fails to read the responses. Extent of this error is determined by the design of read head. Accuracy in this case depends on design of the form and validation applied.;