Using Whitener, Eraser In OMR Sheet Will Amount To Disqualification Of Candidate: Patna HC [Read Judgment]

Background

The Respondent, Bihar School Examination Board, conducted the aforementioned teacher eligibility test following which a model answer key was released. On receiving objections to the answer key, the Board appointed a panel of experts to assess the objections and accordingly a revised answer key was published. Allegedly, objections were raised against the revised answer key as well.

The Petitioners, candidates who had appeared in the test, have alleged herein that:

1. the result of the eligibility test was declared without addressing the objections raised by them on the revised answer key;
2. the Board had reduced the maximum marks in the examination by excluding the marks in relation to the 4 wrong questions and answers in violation of Clause-6 & 7 of the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). In alternative, it was also submitted that if the maximum marks for an examination are reduced, the minimum qualifying marks should also be reduced to the extent of wrong questions/answers. Reliance was placed on Akshey Lal Pandit & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2011(3) PLJR 258;
3. the results of various candidates had been unlawfully withheld citing invalidation of their candidature due to use of whitener by them in the OMR answer sheets. Reliance was placed on Hanuman Datt Shukla & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2018) 16 SCC 447, to state that candidates using whitener or blade cannot be held to be ineligible so as to warrant non-evaluation of their answer-sheets on the basis of advisory note given by the selection Board in absence of any such provision in the recruitment rules issued by the State Government.

The Petitioners prayed before the court to direct the Board to award marks against all the wrong model questions to all the candidates who had appeared in the written examination.

Refuting the aforementioned allegations, the Board submitted that:

1. the result was declared by them in light of the report of the subject experts and further, the Petitioners had furnished no proof that any such objections were raised after the issuance of a revised answer key;
2. the Petitioners had themselves prayed for lowering down the qualifying marks, which had already been granted by the Board inasmuch as a consequence of lowering down the full marks, the qualifying marks automatically gets lowered.
3. the use of whitener in the exam was prohibited by virtue of the advertisement published by it wherein instructions had been given to the candidates appearing in the exam to strictly not overwrite or use whitener during the course of attempting any question. Reliance was placed on Brajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 16359 of 2017, to support the argument. It was further added that in Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission v. A.B. Natarajan & Ors., 2014(14) SCC 95, it was held that any irregularity/malpractice committed by a candidate while writing examination in violation of the instructions given to the candidates renders candidature of such candidates to become ineligible.

Findings

The court found merit in the arguments raised by the Respondent and w.r.t the first issue it was held that the Petitioners had failed to prove that they had filed fresh objections against the revised model answer key and on this ground alone, the writ petition was fit to be dismissed. "…inasmuch as non-submission of such objections clearly depict that the writ petitioners had no grievances against the revised model answer key", the court said.

Addressing the second contention of the Petitioner, the court relied on Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr., 2010 (6) SCC 759, wherein it was held that if there was some discrepancy in framing the questions or evaluation of the answer, it would be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not only for the writ petitioners.

With respect to the third issue, Justice Mohit Kumar Shah approved the reliance of the Board on Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission v. A.B. Natarajan & Ors., and held that since the candidates had been warned by the Board by issuing instructions through an advertisement regarding use of whiteners, any disregard of the instructions contained therein was liable to result in invalidation of the candidature of such candidates using whitener, eraser, pin etc.

Further the court held that the judgment relied upon by the Petitioners, Hanuman Datt Shukla & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., specifically states that the same will not be treated as a precedent for any other case, meaning thereby that the said judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court could not be used as a precedence and would not bind the high court.

"…the candidature of the writ petitioners who have used whitener, eraser, pin etc. have rightly been invalidated by the Respondent-Board since they have violated the instructions given to them which in turn amounts to misconduct, hence such candidates are liable not to be selected", the court said.

Arguments for the Petitioners were advanced by Senior Advocate Y.V. Giri and Advocate Pranav Kumar and for the Respondent by Advocate Satyabir Bharti.

Click here to download the Judgment