ABHISHEK BAHADUR SINGH V. U.P.PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,ALLD. THRU. ITS SECY. AND 2 ORS.

WRIA/4698/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Abhishek Bahadur Singh, the petitioner, who appeared for the preliminary examination of the Provincial Civil Services (P.C.S.) 2017 conducted by the U.P. Public Service Commission. The examination consisted of two papers, with specific instructions that failure to correctly fill in the OMR answer sheet, including the question paper booklet series, would result in non-evaluation of the answer sheet. The petitioner failed to mention the required series, leading to his answer sheet not being scanned for the second paper, resulting in no marks being awarded. The petitioner contested this decision, arguing that the omission was a human error and should be overlooked. However, the court found that the responsibility for the error lay with the petitioner, and upheld the Commission's decision to treat him as absent for the second paper.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 735835 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-1 and another, Smt. Mahima Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: M N SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: GYANENDRA SRIVASTAVA; SATISH
• Keywords: Human Error; Provincial Civil Services; Preliminary Examination; OMR Answer Sheet; Computer Scanning

Judgement Text

"Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4698 of 2018 Petitioner :- Abhishek Bahadur Singh Respondent :- U.P.Public Service Commission,Alld. Thru. Its Secy. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Srivastava,Satish Counsel for Respondent :- M.N. Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Heard Sri Gyanendra Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. The petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination of Provincial Civil Services (P.C.S.) 2017 conducted by the U.P. Public Service Commission. The advertisement provided that the preliminary examination shall consist of two papers and it is mandatory for the candidates to appear in both of them. A candidate will be disqualified if he does not appear in both the papers. The merit will be determined on the basis of marks obtained in paper-1 whereas Paper-2 will be the qualifying paper with 33% as the minimum qualifying marks. The instructions for taking the above examination provides that the candidate should indicate the correct Roll Number, Subject, Paper Code and its Series on the Answer-Sheet, otherwise the Answer-Sheet will not be evaluated and the candidate will be solely responsible for it. The petitioner alleges that he appeared in both the papers of the preliminary examination and obtained 139 marks in the first paper but he has not been awarded any marks in the second paper. Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the Commission on the basis of the instructions informs that the petitioner failed to mention the question paper booklet series in the OMR answer sheet. Therefore, it was not possible for the computer to scan it. Accordingly, no marks have been awarded to him and he has been treated as absent in the second paper. The mark sheet of the petitioner reveals that he has secured 139 marks in the first paper and in the second paper in place of marks 'NS' is mentioned which denotes that the answer sheet was not scanned. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was on account of the human error that the petitioner could not mention the question paper booklet series on OMR sheet. In case the petitioner has not followed the mandatory directions for the purposes of taking the preliminary examination and has omitted to mention the question booklet series on the OMR sheet no one can be blamed for the same except the petitioner. The Commission in the above circumstances rightly treated that the petitioner had not appeared in the paper-2 of the preliminary examination which was mandatory condition for qualifying the same as his answer sheet was not scanned by the computer due to failure to mention the question paper booklet series. The aforesaid mistake if at all can only be rectified by allowing the petitioner to mention the question paper booklet series on the answer sheet for which the answer sheet has to be returned to the candidate after the mistake is detected. If this procedure of correction is allowed to be followed one or the other candidate would go on asking for rectifying similar kinds of mistakes which they might have committed while taking the examination. The process would be unending and as such is not logically permissible. It is also not possible to return the answer sheet or to permit any addition/correction in it after it has been submitted by the candidate. The petitioner, who is a candidate for P.C.S., cannot be expected to be so casual in taking the examination on which his entire career depends to commit such a mistake. The very fact that the petitioner committed such a mistake indicates that he is not a person having the right aptitude for a post in P.C.S. No law protects a person who commits a mistake. It is not the law that if you commit a mistake you would still be entitle to protection by the court of law. However, if you suffer for the mistake of others, you may be entitle to protection or to compensation/damages as the case may be but not for your own mistakes. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance upon Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-1 and another 2012 (11) SCC 316 submitted that the human error if any committed by the petitioner was liable to be overlooked. In the above case the error was in computation of tax while filing the tax return. The error was held to be a human error which occurred due to inadvertence and as such the assessee was not held guilty of furnishing incorrect particulars. The aforesaid decision is of no help as in the instant case, we are not holding the culpability of any party but the impact of the mistake committed. This apart, we are not dealing with the nature of the error as to whether it is a human error or some technical error or that of computer. Admittedly, the error is on part of the petitioner. The petitioner as directed in the conditions for taking the examination has not filled up the question paper booklet series due to which his answer sheet could not be evaluated. The responsibility of such an omission is squarely upon the petitioner and non-else. The other decision of Smt. Mahima Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others 2014 (10) ADJ 512 is of no help to the petitioner as in the said case the benefit of rounding of to the next higher number was not given which otherwise would have qualified the petitioner for selection to Special B.T.C. Course. The error was on part of the examining body and therefore, petitioner was accorded the benefit of rounding off. In such a situation, we do not feel inclined to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 6.2.2018 piyush "