- (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original petitioner) against the judgment and order dated 30.07.2014, whereby the writ petition being W.P. (C.) No. 2126 of 2014 preferred by him, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that this appellant (original petitioner) had applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary School) for which Jharkhand Academic Council is taking examination, popularly known as 'TET', in which preliminary test is taken. In the said preliminary test there is Multiple Choice Questions (hereinafter referred to as MCQ). Normally these MCQs are answered by darkening the circle upon the OMR sheet. The only fault lies on the part of this appellant is that he has not darkened those circles, but, he has written either 'A' or 'B' or 'C' or 'D' which may be the correct answer of the questions asked. However, as the circles were not darkened, the OMR sheet was never examined by the machine and hence the answer sheet could not be examined by the machine. Ultimately, the result of this appellant was declared on 28.05.2013, showing his as Status- "Rejected" and the reason given is BLANK QBSE. This result is at Annexure 3 to the memo of this appeal, which was under challenge in the writ petition.
(3.) Counsel for the appellant submitted that previously a writ petition was preferred by this very appellant in which a direction was given to examine the answer sheet against which Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by respondent No. 1. which was dismissed. Ultimately, a representation was directed to be decided which has been decided against this appellant and, therefore, again another writ was preferred by the appellant and as the second writ has also been dismissed, the second letters patent appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner. The main grounds adopted by the counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) are:- (a) Though the cases of this appellant as well as one another candidate Sushma Kumari were similar, the result of Sushma Kumari has been published whereas result of this candidate has not been published. (b) Counsel for the appellant has referred page No. 59 of the memo of the L.P.A and submitted that there are several irregularities committed by Jharkhand Academic Council and, therefore, they should tolerate the irregularities committed by this candidate, who is appellant. It is further submitted that since the candidates are tolerating the errors of JAC, the JAC should also tolerate the errors of appellant. (c) Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 1625 of 2013 order dated 11.01.2013 (Annexure-16 to the memo of the L.P.A.). (d) Counsel for the appellant submitted that public notice should have been given like the one, which is given by Central Board of Secondary Education about those candidates who have committed some errors in giving answer in OMR sheet. No such public notice was given in this case. (e) Lot of malpractices and corrupt procedures are being followed by JAC and therefore, this appellant's petition should be allowed. (f) Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon page No. 82 of the memo of this L.P.A and submitted that one similarly situated candidate who has forgotten to sign his OMR sheet, his case was allowed by JAC and, therefore, also the errors committed by this appellant should be ignored. The aforesaid aspects of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2126 of 2014 dated 30.07.2014, deserves to be quashed and set aside.;