...
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
#23'"
W. P. (C) 6740/2011 and CM APPL 13612/2011 for interim relief)
INDERJIT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate.
VERSUS
STAFF SELECTIONCOMMISSION AND ANR ..... Respondents
#25
W. P. (C) 6742/2011 and CM APPL 13614/2011 (for interim relief)
EMAMI ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
STAFF SELECTIONCOMMISSION AND ANR .... Respondents
Through: Mr.· L. K. Garg, Advocate.
AND e #26 6743/2011 and CM APPL 13615/2011 for directions
DINESH SONI ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
W. P. (C) No. 674012011 & Batch Page 1 of5 \ 2011:DHC:15995
/o STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. S. Q. Kazim, Advocate for R-1 &2.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
16.09.2011
1. The prayer in these petitions is that.the result of 38,216 candidates, who have been awarded zero marks in the Tier-I Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2011 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission.('SSC'), should be quashed. The submission is that these candidates were awarded zero marks only because of technical defects as a result of which their OMR answer sheets were nof properly evaluated. It is stated that in certain other contingencies, the sse has held a reexamination and, therefore, a mandamus should now be issued to the SSC to hold a fresh Tier-I Examination for the 38,216 candidates, who include the Petitioners in these cases. ·2. Learned counsel appearing for the SSC on advance notice points out that the instructions to the candidates appearing in the exam were explicit. Note-II of the instructions read as follows:
W. P. (C) No. 674012011 & Batch Page 2 of[5] -"Note-II: OMR Type of Answer Sheets will be supplied by the Commission to candidates for recording their answers to Multiple Choice objective Type Questions. Candidates are advised to read the following instructions very carefully, in their own interest: i) Part A of OMR Answer Sheet to be filled in with Ball Point Pen only. ii)Part B of OMR Answer Sheet should be filled in HB pencil only, as per instructions given in OMR Answer Sheet. iii) Candidate should write and code his/her name, Roll number, Ticket Number, Name of the Examination as mentioned m Admission _Certificate, Date of birth and Test Form Number fully and correctly in· the relevant places in OMR Answer Sheet. Answer Sheet not bearing candidates Name, Roll Number, Ticket Number and signature will not be evaluated and 'Zero' marks will be awarded to them. The Commission prima-facie considers absence of such details/coding as attempt to commit malpractice in the examination or to
W. P. (C) No. 6740/2011 & Batch Page[3] of[5] impersonate. Candidates are advised to follow these instructions meticulously and also duly and fully coded in the appropriate places."
3. The results of the Tier-I Examination were declared on 22nct July
2011. However, on 29th July 2011, the SSC clarified- that 38,216 candidates were awarded zero marks. 900 of those candidates had wrongly coded or not coded their name, roll number, ticket number, test form number etc. Different abbreviations were used for each of these reasons as indicating the ground for rejection ofthe candidature.
4. Mr. Sachin Mittal, learned counsel for the Petitioners states that each of the candidates should be told the precise reason for the rejection. If upon proper evaluation of their OMR answer sheets in the Tier-I Examination they are found qualified, they should be given a chance to appear in the Tier-II Examination.
5. It is not possible for this Court to accept the above submissions for more than one reason. This was an All-India examination which was conducted on 191 h June 2011 and 26th June 2011. As against 9,32,358
W. P. (C) No. 674012011 & Batch Page[4] of[5]... candidates who registered, 6,09,572 actually appeared. In other words, the examination was conducted on a massive scale which would have required coordination of the activities in several centers. The instructions were uniformly issued to all evaluators. It is not possible, therefore, to make any exception in case ofthe Petitioners. Further, the Tier-II Examination has already been held. Interviews have been held as scheduled. The entire process of selection is time-bound and any interference at this stage is bound to cause confusion and administrative inconvenience. It is not possible to interdict the process by granting any ofthe reliefs prayed for by the Petitioners.
6. The writ petitions and the applications are dismi~ SEPTEMBER 16,2011 lia
W. P. (C) No. 6740/2011 & Batch