KUMAR SANU YADAV Vs. JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is taken up through video conferencing.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to check and publish the result of the petitioner relating to Combined Assistant Engineer PT Exam, which was held on 19.01.2020 (result published on 14.08.2020), wherein he was not declared as successful in the category of BC-II candidate. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 06.02.2020, wherein the petitioner has prayed for checking his OMR sheet of the said exam.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission published an advertisement inviting online applications for recruitment of Combined Assistant Engineer (Regular) vide Advertisement No. 05/2019. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Mechanical Engineer and appeared in the Combined Assistant Engineer PT examination which was held on 19.01.2020. It is further submitted that during the course of examination the petitioner committed mistake while mentioning the roll number in the OMR sheet and shadowed two circles. The said mistake was reported to the Examination Co-ordinator who instructed the petitioner not to erase circle or correct his shadowing as it will not cause any hindrance in checking the OMR sheet. The petitioner followed the instruction of the examination co-coordinator and submitted his OMR sheet after solving all the questions. The respondents issued answer key for the said exam and the petitioner found that he scored 197 marks in the examination. The result of the said examination was published on 14.08.2020 in which the petitioner was not declared successful, however, the cut off marks was 182 in BC-II category to which the petitioner belongs. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to know about his result and is also willing to know that whether his OMR sheet was considered or not. The action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 06.02.2020 is arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable. The petitioner cannot be held responsible for the mistake done by the examination coordinator, as he followed his instruction.