Gujarat HC Directs Re-Evaluation Of Results For Court Assistant Exam After Minor Error In OMR Sheets, Orders Rectification Efforts
The Gujarat High Court has mandated a reevaluation of the examination results for two candidates who participated in the Assistant exam for the Subordinate Courts of Gujarat. This decision follows the candidates' appeal concerning their performance in the elimination test held in July 2023, after they made a minor but significant error on their OMR answer sheets.
Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati has directed that the results be reconsidered, taking into account the candidates' immediate rectification efforts and the minor nature of their mistake.
Justice Nanavati, observed, “In the opinion of this Court, the mistake committed by the petitioners herein in encircling the roll number, which does not form a part of the relevant instructions, as referred above, provide that filling of wrong entry of question Booklet number and Set Code in the OMR Answer Sheet will cause wrong examination result and the candidate himself/herself will be responsible for the same.”
“Considering the aforesaid as a mistake also, the same is of a trivial nature and in view thereof, exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayers, as prayed for, are required to be allowed to the extent that the respondent herein is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners in light of the aforesaid findings arrived by this Court and declare the result of the petitioners with respect to the elimination test conducted on 02.07.2023 pursuant to the advertisement No.RC/1434/2022(II),” she added.
Furthermore, the Court specified that if, following the reevaluation, the petitioners are found to have cleared the elimination test according to the prescribed criteria, their results for the subsequent written examination should also be declared.
As per the factual matrix of the case, the High Court, as the respondent, issued an advertisement on 27.04.2023, inviting online applications for centralised recruitment to the post of Assistant for the Subordinate Courts in the State of Gujarat, with 1778 positions available. The petitioners participated in the elimination test held on 02.07.2023. At the time of the examination, they were provided with a question booklet and an OMR answer sheet.
The question booklet included instructions that required candidates to fill in the roll number, question booklet number, confirmation number, exam center code, and set code using a black or blue ballpoint pen. The instructions specifically warned that any incorrect entry of the question booklet number and set code on the OMR answer sheet could lead to an incorrect examination result, for which the candidate would be solely responsible. Additionally, candidates were instructed to replace any question booklet or OMR answer sheet with discrepancies within five minutes of the exam's start, as no objections would be entertained after that period.
In the present case, the petitioners made an error in filling out one of the circles in the roll number section of the OMR sheet. Recognizing their mistake, the petitioners immediately approached the invigilator within the prescribed five minutes and requested a new OMR sheet. The invigilator instructed them to encircle the correct number and countersign the OMR sheet. The petitioners proceeded to complete the multiple-choice questions (MCQs) on the OMR sheet.
However, due to the initial error, their results were not declared. The petitioners subsequently made three representations to the respondent authority via email but received no response. As a result, the petitioners filed petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking permission to appear in the practical/skill typing test scheduled for 25.08.2024.
The Court, in contemplating the case, referred to the instructions which were required to be abided by the petitioners, considering which the Court observed that the said instructions provided that filling of wrong entry of the question Booklet number and Set Code in the OMR Sheet would cause wrong examination result and for which, the candidate himself/herself would be responsible for the same.
The Court held, “In the facts of the present case, admittedly, the petitioners committed a mistake in encircling the roll number which does not form a part of the said instructions. Further, on perusal of the instruction no.1 also, the petitioners approached the invigilator, requesting for a fresh OMR sheet however, the copy of the OMR sheet, which is on record, is duly countersigned by the invigilator and in view thereof, this Court proceeds to accept the fact that the same having been countersigned by the invigilator, there was no objection.”
In light of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the Court referred to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others, whereby the Supreme Court had allowed the plea of a man, aspiring to become a Police Constable, whose candidature was cancelled by the respondent-authorities on account of an inadvertent error made by him while mentioning his date of birth in the application form.
Accordingly, the petitions were allowed by the Court.
Case Title: Vishalkumar Kanubhai Patel Versus High Court Of Gujarat
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 122