Govt Job Is A Dream, Oversight Due To Anxiety Should Not Haunt: P&H HC Grants Relief To Candidates Disqualified For Not Filling Booklet Series In OMR

The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed plea of candidates challenging their disqualification in Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) due to not filing booklet series in the OMR sheet, observing that "securing a public employment is a dream for a common person and the failure to compete in the same solely due to certain inadvertent omissions would crush the entire career prospects of a candidate, more so, it is only occasionally that advertisements for such public employment are issued."

Justice Vinod Bhardwaj said, "Rejecting a candidature of a person is the extreme consequence of an omission and while being a guardian of fairness of the selection process, the Court is also expected to balance the aspirations of the competing candidates considering that public employment is a scarce opportunity which is available occasionally. In such a stage of anxiety laden competing pressure, a candidate may, at one point, commit an oversight, an act/omission that is innocuous and having no meaningful impact, but the consequence of that failure should not haunt a person for the rest of his life."

These observations were made while hearing a plea of two candidates who were disqualified for not filing up the bubbles for booklet series in the OMR sheet.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that it has been set out in the instructions issued to the candidates that they have to be carefully read and followed by the respective candidates and it also prescribes that in the event of any omission or discrepancy in filling up the roll number, question booklet series and question booklet number, the same would render the OMR sheet liable for rejection.

It noted further that the condition uses an expression “will render the OMR sheet liable for rejection”.

"“Rendering the OMR liable for rejection”, has to be understood correctly. “Liable”, as is defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition is an adjective which means as under:

(1) Responsible or answerable in law; legally obligated.

(2) (of a person) subject to or likely to incur (a fee, penalty etc.)," added the Court.

Justice Bhardwaj highlighted that liability to the extent of rejection of candidature is a 'likely consequence' and it may not be a compulsory/mandatory consequence.

Thus the rejection of the answer sheet/OMR sheet is not mandatory but is an empowering provision authorizing the HPSC to reject candidature in a befitting case, added the judge.

Considering that the counsel for the HPSC does not express any apprehension of any foul play or  tampering of the final result or any possibility of vitiating the selection process or creating doubts with respect to the sanctity of the selection process, the Court opined that "such a trivial omission is required to be resorted to its extreme only in befitting circumstances, where the omission would have a semblance of vitiating the selection process or creating reasonable doubts and apprehensions in the minds of the general public that the final outcome of the selection process is likely to be severely compromised."

The Court opined that enforcement of such extreme power should be made once there is a reasonable doubt or apprehension of mischief in so doing, but not where mischief is clearly ruled out and that the effect of the omission would have no reflection on the sanctity or security of the process of selection.

In light of the above, the Court directed the petitioners to appear in the office of the Secretary, Haryana Public Service Commission, whereupon the HPSC shall carry out the evaluation of the OMR sheets for screening.

Mr. Deepak Vashishth and Mr. Sunil Bhardwaj, Advocates for the petitioners.

Mr. Gurnoor Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent.

Title: RENU SHARMA AND ORS v. HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 62

Click here to read/download the order