LAWS(RAJ)-2019-1-401

RICHHPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On January 04, 2019
RICHHPAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner appeared in the written examination for appointment to the post of Constable (General) in District Bhilwara, as held pursuant to the advertisement dtd. 25/5/2018.

(2.) It has been submitted that OMR answer sheet of the petitioner was not checked denying the petitioner an opportunity of consideration for appointment to the post of Constable (General). It has been prayed that the respondents be directed to check the OMR answer sheet of the petitioner and in the event of his having passed the written examination with reference to the petitioner's marks determined for the purpose for District Jhalawar where he applied, he be allowed to participate further in the recruitment process including the Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET) under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989.

(3.) On notice, reply to the petition has been filed. It has been submitted that lakhs of candidates appeared at written examination for the post of Constable. The conditions of the advertisement dtd. 25/5/2018 more particularly condition No. 13 (xii) thereof provide that OMR answer sheets of the candidates would be checked by Computer. It has been submitted that the process being computerized, it was incumbent upon the candidates to fill up their roll numbers properly and also to answer the questions clearly by filling up the relevant circle in the answers to the corresponding questions. It has been submitted that the petitioner did not fill up his roll number properly at the time of appearing and writing the examination in issue. Resultantly the process being computerized and the petitioner's roll number being in-complete, the petitioner's answer sheet could not be checked and he was not marked therefor. It has been submitted that in the circumstance the petitioner is a victim of his own carelessness and no arbitrariness or illegality can be attributed to the respondents in not marking the petitioner's OMR answer sheet in the facts stated.