Dole Nitin Madhukar v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 02 Mar 2023 · 2023:DHC:1571-DB

Suresh Kumar Kait; Tushar Rao Gedela

W.P.(C) 3043/2021

2023:DHC:1571-DB

administrative appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed manual re-evaluation of the petitioner’s OMR answer sheet and allowed his selection for BSF Sub-Inspector by creating a supernumerary post or borrowing a vacancy, granting him seniority with the original batch.

Full Text

Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/001571

W.P.(C) 3043/2021
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: March 02, 2023

W.P.(C) 3043/2021
DOLE NITIN MADHUKAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Ms.Apurva & Mr.Shivaji M.
Jadhav, Advocates

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Farman Ali, Sr. Panel Counsel with Mr. Krishan Kumar and Ms. Usha Jamnal, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

JUDGMENT

(oral)

1. Vide the present petition, petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside of the results dated 11.01.2021 published by respondent No.1; directions to the respondents to re-evaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner and upon successful re-evaluation of the same allow the petitioner to be selected to the post of Sub-Inspector (GD) in BSF.

2. On the last date of hearing, i.e. 09.02.2023, this Court had noted the stand of respondents in their counter-affidavit which is as under:

“2. That the contents of Paragraph 05 of the Writ Petition is vehemently denied. In reply thereto, it is most respectfully submitted that Written Examination for the post of Sub Inspector (GD) through

16:56 Limited Departmental Competitive Examination 2018-19 was conducted on 18.08.2019 at 19 BSF Centres/Locations. The candidates including petitioner were permitted to retain carbon-copy of the OMR Answer Sheet to tally with the Answer Key that was issued to them on 17.10.2019. As per scanned documents, petitioner attempted all the questions, out of which 133 questions were answered correctly and 06 marks were given owing to wrong questions noticed in the 'A' Booklet series of question paper to each candidate including the petitioner. The answer to 10 questions were not shaded properly by the petitioner as per the instructions given on the question booklet, hence no mark could be awarded to the petitioner as those answers were treated as invalid by the computer during scanning of his answer sheet by the outsourced firm. The answers of remaining 51 questions were found wrong. As per the instructions, candidate must darken the circle properly in answer sheet as use of blade, eraser, correction fluid etc. in the answer sheet is not permitted and circle not darkened properly will be considered invalid. The petitioner had not completely darkened the circle of 10 questions in OMR answer sheet due to which his 10 questions were not evaluated/scanned by the OMR machine, hence no mark awarded.”

3. In view of aforenoted stand of respondents in their counter-affidavit, this Court had passed the following directions:

“2. In addition to above, answer sheet of the petitioner has been produced in the court and we have perused the same and none of the answers marked are unmarked or dim. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby direct the respondents to assess the answer sheets manually and prepare the result within two weeks from today and produce the same in the Court on the next date of hearing.”

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, learned counsel for respondents has informed that the respondents have assessed the answer-sheet of petitioner manually and it is found that petitioner has secured 150 marks and cut-off marks for Unreserved Category was 147.

5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the vacancies of the selection in process have already filled-up. Since there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and the same was due to mechanical error which could 16:56 not assess the marks of petitioner properly.

6. In view of above, we hereby dispose of the present petition by directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join further selection process.

7. It is made clear if the vacancies of that year for the post in question have already filled-up, then a supernumerary post be created or one vacancy from the subsequent year be borrowed to enable the petitioner to join selection process.

8. Respondents shall allow the petitioner to the course required with the next batch, however, he is entitled for all the consequential benefits and seniority with the earlier batch. (SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE (TUSHAR RAO GEDELA)

Dole Nitin Madhukar v. Union of India & Anr.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation