OWP No. 436 of 2015. Case: Pankaj Sharma Vs State and Ors.. Jammu and Kashmir High Court
|Case Number:||OWP No. 436 of 2015|
|Party Name:||Pankaj Sharma Vs State and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Sunil Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Paras Gupta, Adv. and For Respondent: Ashish Singh Kotwal, Adv.|
|Judges:||Tashi Rabstan, J.|
|Issue:||Constitution of India - Article 226|
|Citation:||AIR 2016 J&K 32|
|Judgement Date:||September 21, 2015|
|Court:||Jammu and Kashmir High Court|
The petitioner through the medium of present petition is seeking a direction to the respondents to re-evaluate her OMR Answer Sheet, Paper-II of MD/MS/PG Diploma and MDS Entrance Test 2015 after treating option "B" instead of "A" inadvertantly filled-in by the petitioner against Column "Question Booklet Series" in the said sheet.
The facts-in-brief are that the petitioner after having done MBBS from Government Medical Collee, Jammu applied for MD/MS/PG Diploma course in pursuance of Advertisement Notification No. 01-BOPEE of 2015 dated 8-1-2015. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the examination held on 15th March, 2015. It is averred that during the second session, the petitioner was provided Question Booklet Series "B" with Question Booklet No. 520198. In the OMR Answer Sheet where the petitioner had to fill-in the answers, it is averred due to oversight and inadvertence, instead of mentioning "B" against the Column of Question Booklet Series, the petitioner filled "A" and proceeded to solve the questions on the OMR Answer Sheet.
The grievance of petitioner is that in the result declared on 2-4-2015 she has been awarded 93 marks in Paper-I, whereas only 34 marks have been awarded to her in Paper-II due to wrongly/inadvertently mentioning as "A" against the column of Question Booklet Series. It is averred in the petition that immediately after declaration of the result, the petitioner approached respondents 2 to 4 with a request to re-evaluate her OMR Answer Sheet of Paper-II after taking Question Booklet Series as "B" instead of "A." Her case was that as per the answer key published, she would have actually been awarded 88 marks in Paper-II, but due to inadvertently mentioning the wrong Question Booklet Series, she has been awarded only 34 marks in the said paper. The reespondents, however, refused to entertain the request of petitioner. Hence the present writ petition.
The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner was otherwise required to be awarded 88 marks in Paper-II if the petitioner would not have inadvertently mentioned "A" instead of "B" against the column of Question Booklet Series. He further contended that the Invigilators and Deputy Superintendent in the examination centre were equally responsible in not ensuring that the petitioner had not rightly filled-in in the relevant particular on the OMR Answer Sheet of Paper-II.
Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL