IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. i^o.3<^&'/2005 PETITIONER: Dharmendra Jain aged about 32 years, S/o Khemachand Jain R/o Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: /</^/ <^y/ >~'<»•*.-T.-'y..-'' ^~>.\**' •^•' /•z^.'^ .^^y ^/w ^/y ^'^^ 3. State of Chhattisgarh Tlirough Lhe Secretary, Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur High Court of Chhattisgarh, Through Registrar General Bilaspur, C.G. Chhattisgarh Lok Seva Ayog, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, (C.G.) ^PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION ^3F JNDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF ii BIANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- ^F^- HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIUtSPUR (CHHATTIS6< Hl WRIT PETITION N0.3M5 OF 2005 Dharmendra Jain Vereus State oft.Chhattisgarh & Others POST FOR OR&BR ON !<:t ^SB>TEMBER. 2005 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR Sinate Bench: Satish K. Annihotri. J WRIT PETITION N0.3648 OF 2005 Dharmendra Jain Vereus State of Chhattisgarh & Othas Mr. Kanak Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel for the peUUoner. Mr. Vwek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State of Chhattisgarh / respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, leamed counsel for respondent No.2. Mr. Y.C. Sharma, leamed counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ( /'5'^September, 2005) The present petition ffled under Article 226 of the Constttdion of India impugnes communlcation / decision dated 21.07.2005 (Armexure P- 4) passed by the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva Ayog, Raipur - respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner was disqualified due to mentioning of the identiflcation mark in the fist answer sheet 2. The facts in brief are that the petMoner, pursuant to advertisement No.02/2004/Examination dated 19.08.2004, applied for Judicial Senrices Main Examination, 2004 for th®appointment to the post of Ch/il Judges Class-11. Clause 12(d) in the advertisement prohibte mCTtionlng of rcril number and / or name elsewhere except at givai place, as the same would be treated as identification mark. It was further provided ttiat the candidature of the examinaUon of the candidate would be cancelled without notice to the candidate. In the admit card for Judieial Sen/ices /' ^•^^ Main Examination,2004 Clause 3 of the histrudtons and guklelines ftirther provided that writing of name and roll number in ttie answer sheet at any place other than ttie prescribal one and attaching any document or wriUng in any other colour, except in blue or blsck ink pen w ctot pen would be treated as identffication mark and the resuft thereof would be cancelled. Clause 4 - IdentiTication Mark - in insfructions and guidelines for ttie examinees stated in the second page of the answer sheet provides that the examinee would mention his roll number at prescribed place. The examinee would not menUw his roll number or his name or his address which may indicate as identification, anywhere in the answer sheefc The examinee would further not annex any material with the answer sheet. The examinee would use blue or black ink pen or dot pen and not any other pen or ink. In case the candklate contravenes the above stated instructions, the examination of the candidate would be cancelled. Th® petitioner received communication / decision dated 21.07.20(ffi (Amiexure P-4) whereby it was stated that (he petiUoner had put an identification mark in viotation of Clause 3 of the instructions in the admit card, Clause 4 of the instructions in the answer sheet and Clause 12(d) of the advertisement. Thus, the petitioner was declared as disqualifiaj for Judicial Services Main Examination, 2004. The petitioner submitted his repty on 30.07.2005 (Annexure P-5) seeking more details about the communicaCon / decision dated 21 .07.2005. 3. The petitioner, being aggrieved, flled this writ petitton under Artiele 226 of the Constitution of India praying that ttie communication / deciston dated 21.07.2005 (Annexure P-4) be quashed and the respondents be directed to evaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner and to further declare the result thereof. The respondents filed thelr reply submitting that the petitioner has violated not only the stated instructions / guidelines in f ^A I ' ! the communfcation / decision dated 21.07.2005, but (urther Clause 3 of the instructions / guidelines in the answer sheet, which provided that ttie examinee would not write his roll number anywhere except in the prescribed place and would perform rough work on fte last page of the answer sheet, !.e. page No.24 only. This further provided that in adcHtion, writing any thing or copying question paper is punishable. Respondents submitted that the petitioner by writlng rdigious words in the last rough page has violated Clause 3 as provided in fte answer sheet and as such the petitioner was rightly declared as dlsqualified. 4. Mr. Kanak Tiwari, leamed Senior counsd with Mr. Jitendra Pali, leamed Advocate for the petitioner submitted ftat the petiUoner has not committed violation of any of the clauses as stated in the communication / decision dated 21.07.2005. The petiUoner by wriUng / scribbling "^) <iu1^iiii ^PT: % w-w^idi^ 7m: ^iMi^isii^ 'Vt' on the tast page i.e. captioned as "rough work" has not violated even the instruction No.3 as stated in fte reply of the respondent No.3. Leamed counset for the petitfoner ftirther submitted that the petitioner had not written his roll number, name or address at any other place except at the prescribed place. The petitioner had not annexed any material whteh coufd be treated as identification mark and writing name of fte god at the last page i.e. rough page, i.e. (»ge No.24, which is not meant for valuaUon, had pertbrmed his religious duty n<rt wiUi the purpose to mention any identification mark. The last page was not supposed to be evalualed as per the instructions. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it may be a bonafide mistake but it does not come under mischief of identification. tf the petitioner's candidature is rejectsd and he is declared for the Judieial Services Examlnation.2004, as disqudified, he woukl 4 sulfer irreparable loss and as swh teamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition cteserves to be allowed and respondents be directed to dectare the result of the petitloner and allow him to parfclpate in the interview, iffound qualified forthe same. 5. Mr. Y.C. Sharma, leamed counsel for respondent lsto.3 - Chhattisgarh Lok Seva Ayog, submitted that the petitioner had violated instructions as cleariy provided in the advertisement, admft card and answer sheet by mentioning identification mark in the answer sheet. The jnstructions / guidelines prescribed in the advertisement, admit card and In the answer sheet are illusfrative, not exhaustwe, even writing the name of God Imounts to identification mark and the fault cannot be found with respondent No.3 as respondent No.3 had cancelled the candidature of the petitioner and disqualified him for having the examinatfon fair, above-board and in pubtic interest. The petitioner has deliberatety put a mark which is prohibited and which tantamounts to Identification mark. 6. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, leamed counsel for respondent No.2 - High Court of Chhattisgarh, submitted that the stand of the Chhatti^arh Lok Seva Ayog - respondent No.3, is just & proper and it needs no interference bythis Hon'ble Court. 7. Mr; Vivek Sharma, leamed Panel Lawyer for the State of Chhattisgarh adopts the contentions of other respondents. 8. I have gone through the original answer sheet and the proeeedings recorded by respondent No.3 before issuing impugned communication / decision dated 21.07.2005, on perusal of the papere, l found that at the back page i.e. page No.24 below the caption "rough work", the petitioner has written "^ 'tulyil^l 7FT: ^W-W^lrll^l 7FT: ^W^ITaTra 7H:". The instruction provided to put a cross (X) mark after using ttie page meant for rough work, but ttie petitioner had drawn one line, not cross mark. 1 have further perused the proceeding whereby the decision was taken to disqualify the petitioner, it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner has violated instructfons/ guidelines gwen in the answer sheet by putting religious words on the tast page i.e. page No.24. 9. Clause 12(d) of the advertisement reads as under: "(^) 4g-c<M ^T^- 'snR ^ra?T IR ^ten^fi ^N?r PlfcifRct wrq ^ ^t sn?n y|'j,<t)*41'cb 'RRt I ^ d*4l<icll'( <iCTl<i^R^*| z^ spq 'f^ift OTFT •CR gi^qfcp ^/-m srqqr ^IH RR^'I ^f)' ^ Mg-cii'i I^F? <RMT ITFTT ull<)411 I t^ trg^H 1^F? 'SfT^ ycb'i")!' 4 3)l^*f ^ 'llR:^ ^TT a.ri^raN 7itf 'i?i7n WIT 'RRT 'f^ft ';q^iT ^ ''3?ra?t ^uftcicii'Q <WT q^ten Pi'i'w ^ ^ff ^4><n i" Clause 3 of the Admit Card read as under: "tfH - 4^-clM ^Fg- 'iiwl'<ilR^*l IT? q^tewff ^cf f^ierff^T WPT XR ^t SIIFTT ^H 3fh? 31j*Hicb f^t 1 dCTK^f^lcbl ^ 3F? t^ft •»ft•WT tR 7f Hl' ai^^i'ch ^r arq^r ^TH sjN ?T tt xrcrr gff^ ^ 1^re^ q1ft5Tisff ^t tre^Fr ^ ^ 4 ^ cN ?t ^ i <iCTt<<^pkt4>i ^ 'war SF^ ^ wqnft WT^ w^ ^Ncr t, vs TR^H f^F? ^rmr wrr ^nr •^s •-:M ww ^pRft wr€Tq?T ^T w ^fe^Ff ^cpN ^ ctrar sff ^PCT t i si^i w ?Nff Tn7r utTift i qg?im ^R srt^r v^ ^ 3iic|<icb1 ^t ^rfteiT ^RW ^t ^Tft i" Ctause 3 and 4 of the Answer sheet reads under : "3. 'qflCT'afi W3W31 1T? ift 31^c|»^|cb l$;Rt ^TT •Wp zppf W\ ira WTT <iwf<!y,R<ict?i ^ srRm ^ ^R €r^ w^ srf^Rr ^? »ft R|<s!')l WFra ^t :=TO5f '95'CTT Vf ^?Tcf?r ^T yiT;TT N^S 'gt^ SI^RT ^TIER W^T Z& •W1H <iU^«fl^ t 1 ^cqT VW ^RPf ^^ ^ ^T? ^cRT ^ ^5t (X) ^RT ^? '?' "4. 'qgSTFT I^FS-^CTR ^RaW ^R 'cptor^f '^vf Pl&lFRd WPT ^R €tSWTT Sl^cb'Hict) ^Rt | ^??R ^?ra?r ^ spsr fe^ft ''ft TFT 'R 7f cft 31'j,ct>.4|cb ^ 3|IRT ^tTO Sft^ 7r ^tWT Slf^T 'c|5^ 1^Rr^ tFfRTTaff^ M^M ^ ^ 4 '^lf «rtsr?t W^ 1 ^!wR y,^*] ^ wsr 3F?r ^ ^pmft ^v^ wv ?^r t i •q? TT??TFT f^? WFTT 'HRT Sff^rTT ^9?T ^ftcft SPraT ^PTcft WT^t W ^ ^TT ^fe ^T ^TOtT ^ ?irar ^IT ^^ar t sr^ w qlS^r ^ ^fTr i tTFIPT -f^? srt^T ^^ qi^ sn^^f ?i5t i^taT f?rTOT ^t uii^n i" On bare perusal of the instructions / guictelines stated in the adverfisement / admit card and the answer sheet, it is very clear that writing anything on any page including the rough page is prohibited and punishable. Clause 5 of the instructions / guidelines for the examinees in the answer sheet clearly provides that wriUng adctltional word on any page tantamounts to use of illegal means and the same Is punishable includir^ cancellation of the resurt and rejecUon of the candidature by dectaring the candidate as disqualified. 10. In the case of Kamataka Public Service Commission and others vs. B.M. Vijaya Shankar and others, reported in (1992) 2 Supreme Court Cases 206, ctted by learned counsel for respondent No.2, the Supreme Court has held as under: "3. Such Instructions ar®issued to ensure fairness In the examination. In the fast deterioratlng standarcte of honesty and morality in the society the insistBnce by the Commlsston that no attempt shouM be made of identiftoaUon of the candidate by writing hls roll number anywhere is In frie laraer oublfc interest. U is vrell known that the iirst Baae of e answer book on which rolt number is written is removed and a fictitious code number is provided to rule out any effort of any approach to the examiner. Not that a candidate who has written his roll number would have approached the examiner. He may have committed a bona flde mistake. But that is not material. What was attempted t be achieved by the instruction was to minimize any possibility or chance of any abuse. Larger public interest demands insidence of observance of insfruction rather than Its breach. 4. Was natural justice violated? Nafairal jusfice te a concept which has succeeded in keeping ttie arbitrary acUon wlthln limits and preserving the rule of law. But wtth all the religious rigidlty witti whteh it shoukl be observed, since it is ultimately weighed in talance of fairness, the couris have been circumspect in extending it to situations where it would cause more injusBce than justice. Even though the procedure of affording hearing is as important as decision on merits yet urgency of the matter, or public interest at times require flexibility in applicatton of the rule as the circumstances of the case and the nature of the matter required to be dealt may serve interest of justice better by denying opportunity of hearing and permitting the person coneemed to challenge the order Uself on merits not for lack of hearing to establish bona fide or innocence but fo being otherwise arbitrary or against rutes. Present is a case whteh, in our opinion, can safely be ptaced in a category where natural justice before taking any actton stood excluded as it did not involve any misconduct or punishment. 5. CompeUtive examinatkans are required to be conducted by the Commission for public service In strj<d secrecy to get the best brain. Public interest requires no compromise on it. Any vidation of it should be visited strictly. Absence of any expectation of hearing in matters which do not affect any interest and call for immediate action, such as the present one, where it would have delayed declaration of list of other candidates which would /^^) have been more unfatr and unjust are rare but well recognized exceptions to ttie rule of natural justice." 11. In the case of M.T. Khan and others vs. Govt. of A.P. and others, reported in (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 267, cited t>y leamed counsel for respondent No.2, the Supreme Court has held as under: "xxx xxx xxx. It is now wetl-setUed principle of law that in mentioning or wrong mentioning of a provision of law does not mandate an order in the event it is found that a power therefore exists." 12. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties, and perused the records of the case, including the answer sheet and the deciston of the Chhattisgarh Lok Seva Ayog. 1 am of the opinion that it is not in dispute that the petitioner had used untair and illegal means by writing religious words as stated above on the last page ofthe answer shert captioned as "rough work". It is violative of instructions and guidelines issued time to Ume in the adveitisement, the admit card and the answer sheet. The communication / decision dated 21.07.2005 cannot be vitiated on the ground that respondent No.3 had not mentioned in the eommunication / decision that the petitioner had violated clause 3 or clause 5 of the instructtons / guidelines mentioned in the arewer sheet. The mentioning of addiUonal word, like religious words in the present case, is certainly use of additional words in the answer sheet, which is sfrictly prohibited under clause 3 of the instructions / guidelines in the answer sheet. In the present case, the action could not be termed as arbitrary and there is no vtolation of principles of natural justice as the same would delay the process of selection and the unfair means employed by the petitioner is evident on the face of record. 13. The competiUv®oaiinnation like tfie present one, ar®required to be conducted in strict secrecy in public interest and in a very fair manner to enthuse confidence in it. The petitionsr had admtttedly put his identificrtion mark on Vhe answer sheet by writing some religtouswords on the last page of the paper, which tE(ntamainte to use of illegal means ateo. ^ 14. For the reasons stated above, writ petttton is dismissed. No order as to coste. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sarma