Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.@mdashHeard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Academic Council.
2. The petitioner took Teacher Eligibility Test, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "TET"). The results were declared. When the results were uploaded in the Website, candidature of the petitioner was declared as rejected and the reason was shown as "Blank QBSE".
3. That order was challenged before this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 3342 of 2013. This Court vide order dated 02.12.2013, disposed of the writ petition, directing the Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi to consider the petitioner''s representation.
4. That order was challenged by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as "JAC") by way intra court Appeal vide L.P.A. No. 450 of 2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.03.2014 on the following terms:-
Para-5: Without going into the merits of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, we are of the view that since the learned Single Judge has directed the Jharkhand Academic Council to consider the representation of the 1st respondent, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the rival contentions. Suffice it to direct the appellant-Jharkhand Academic Council to consider the representation of the 1st respondent and pass appropriate order, ignoring the minor technicalities, within a period of two weeks from today.
5. Pursuant to that, representation, which had earlier been filed on 30.05.2013 on behalf of the petitioner, was considered and after considering the case of the petitioner, an order was passed on 13.03.2014 as contained in Memo No. JAC/Vidhi/08/13/CC/74/14 by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, holding therein that the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be allowed and thereby, the representation of the petitioner was rejected.
6. Being aggrieved with that order dated 13.03.2014, this writ petition has been filed.
7. Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by producing first page of OMR Sheet, submits that all the columns, relating to Roll Number, Question Booklet No., Language Code, Question Booklet Series, Category, applied for have been filled up and even the series of the Booklet has been written at the relevant space as "D" and thereby, all the instructions, which were there in the Admit Card and also over OMR Sheet were carried out. Still OMR sheet of the petitioner was not evaluated for the reason as has been stated in the impugned order that the petitioner did not darken the space relating to Question Booklet Series (QBSE), but that was never the requirement, as no such instruction is there either in the Admit Card or over the OMR Sheet and, thereby, the authority, by not getting the OMR Sheet evaluated, has committed grave illegality whereby the petitioner''s future has been put to jeopardy.
8. As against this, learned senior counsel appearing for the JAC, by referring to the impugned order under which representation of the petitioner has been rejected, submits that it is not correct on the part of the petitioner to say that no instruction was there over the OMR Sheet requiring the candidates to darken the space put in over the OMR Sheet, rather over the back of the OMR Sheet, instructions were there for darkening the space. 2nd instruction was also there particularly on the point of darkening of appropriate circle which reads as follows:-
2. For marking response, darken appropriate circle in the choice as shown below.
9. Not only that, instruction is also there about the manner in which the space should be darkened and under the circumstances, it is quite wrong on the part of the petitioner to say that no instruction had been issued on the point of darkening of the spaces, which were there under OMR Sheet.
10. Further, it was submitted that since the space relating to Question Booklet Series had not been darkened, the OMR Sheet of the petitioner was never evaluated, on account of non acceptance of OMR Sheet by the Computer and hence, instant writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
11. Having heard the parties, it does appear that the stand which has been taken by the petitioner is that there was no instruction to the effect that the space which had been given over the OMR Sheet including the space meant for giving Question Booklet Series were to be darkened, otherwise, the Computer would not accept the OMR sheet for its evaluation. However, this was not found to be correct proposition. The Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi while dealing with the representation, did record that instructions were there over the OMR Sheet that candidates were required to darken the spaces given in the OMR Sheet, but the petitioner did not darken the space meant for giving information about Question Booklet Series and, therefore, on account of that, OMR Sheet of the petitioner was not evaluated. While holding so, it was stated that such defect never happens to be the minor in nature, as the computer, in absence of necessary space to be darkened, would not be accepting it for its evaluation. The reason assigned for rejecting the representation seems to be quite valid.
12. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and hence, it is dismissed.
