Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Swati Aneja vs Govt. Of Nctd on 1 July, 2025
1 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch
Item 51 (C-4)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A No. 2333/2017, O.A No. 1657/2019,
O.A No. 3328/2017, O.A No. 1152/2019 and
O.A No. 2682/2019, OA No. 934/2019,
OA 867/2019 and OA 837/2019
Reserved on : 26.03.2025
Pronounced on : 01.07.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
(i) O.A No. 2333/2017 :
1. Vishvender
S/o Sh. Dayanand
R/o H. No. 574, Pole No. 41,
Near Shiv Mandir, Takia Talab,
V.P.O. Mundka, Delhi-110041
Aged about 26 years
2. Sunny Chopra
S/o Sh. Vinod Chopra
R/o H. No. 22, G.F. Pocket-5,
Sector-22, Rohini,
Delhi-110086
Aged about 33 years
3. Deepak Panwar
S/o Sh. Krishanpal Panwar
R/o U-65, Gali No. 6,
Phase-4, Shiv Vihar,
Karawal Nagar,
Delhi - 110094-
Aged about 24 years
4. Deepak Bhardwaj
S/o Sh. Yogendra Kumar
R/o Gali No. 11/1,
Ganga Vihar Colony, Bhopa Road,
Muzaffar Nagar, UP
Aged about 24 years
2 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch
Item 51 (C-4)
5. Savita
D/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o RZ A-110, Phase-2,
Prem Nagar, Najafgarh,
New Delhi - 110043
Aged about 29 years
(Group 'C') ...Applicants
(Candidates towards the post of Grade-II (DASS), post code 40/13)
(By Advocate : Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. GNCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
A-Wing, 5th Floor,
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate
New Delhi.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through its Secretary
FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
Delhi- 92
3. The Secretary (Services),
GNCT of Delhi,
B- Wing, 7th level, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-2 ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Mr. Amit Yadav with Dr.
Monika Bhargava, Ms. Neha Bairagee, Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, Mr.
Vishwendra Verma, Mr. Tanmay with Mr. Amit Anand and Ms.
Sriparna Chatterjee)
(ii) O.A No. 1657/2019 :
Chandra Prakash Singh
S/o Sh. Ramesh Chandra Singh
R/o H. No. 126, Village and Post
Murara, Sub - Division - Kerakat,
District Jaunpur - U.P. 222170
Aged about 29 years
(Group B) ...Applicant
3 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch
Item 51 (C-4)
(Candidate towards the post of Special Educator post code 15/17)
By Advocate : Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission (HQ),
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
Block No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
2. Staff Selection Commission
(Central Region) 21-23
Lowther Road, George Town,
Allahabad-211002 (U.P.)
Through Regional Director (CR)
3. Chairman
Staff Selection Commission (Central Region)
Kendriya Sadan, 34-A, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines,
Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh-211001. ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Mr. Amit Yadav with Dr.
Monika Bhargava, Ms. Neha Bairagee, Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, Mr.
Vishwendra Verma, Mr. Tanmay with Mr. Amit Anand and Ms.
Sriparna Chatterjee)
(iii) O.A No. 3328/2017 :
1. Arvind Kumar
S/o Sh. Chiranji Lal
R/o W.E-119, Rama Park,
Road, Mohan Garden,
New Delhi - 110059.
Aged about 26 years
2. Dharam Chand Meena
S/o Sh. Ramji Lal Meena
R/o Vill- Dhorala Post- Saloli,
Teh- Reni, Dist- Alwar,
(Raj)- 301409.
Aged about 28 years
3. Sunil Kumar Meena
S/o Sh. Kedar Lal Meena
4 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch
Item 51 (C-4)
R/o Adarsh Colony, Mala Road,
Ajay Ahuja Marg, Kota Jn
(Raj) 324002.
Aged about 27 years
4. Net Ram Meena
S/o Sh. Shreephal Meena
R/o V.P.O. - Singhaniya,
Teh- Todabhim, Distt. Karauli,
Rajasthan, Pin code- 322230
Aged about 26 years
(Group 'C'). ...Applicants
(Candidates towards the Post Code 69/13, 64/13, 66/13, 69/13,
68/13, 70/13)
(By Advocate : Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
A-Wing, 5th Floor,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate
New Delhi.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through its Secretary,
FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
Delhi- 92.
3. New Delhi Municipal Council
Through its Chairman
Palika Kendra Parliament Street,
New Delhi 110001
4. Delhi Jal Board
Through its Executive Officer
Varunalaya Ph-II, Jhandewalan,
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005
5. South Delhi Municipal Corportion
Through its Commissioner
Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre,
Minto Road
New Delhi-110002 ...Respondents
5 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch
Item 51 (C-4)
(By Advocate : Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Mr. Amit Yadav with Dr.
Monika Bhargava, Ms. Neha Bairagee, Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, Mr.
Vishwendra Verma, Mr. Tanmay with Mr. Amit Anand and Ms. Sriparna
Chatterjee)
(iv) O.A No. 1152/2019 :
1. Swati Aneja
D/o Shri Hari Om Aneja
R/o 35/14, Ashok Nagar,
Behind Tilak Nagar Police Station,
New Delhi-110018
Aged about 27 years
(Group 'B')
(Teacher Primary)
(Candidate towards the post code 01/18)
2. Jyotsana
D/o Shri Ishwer
R/o H.No. 77A, Main Gali,
Vijay Nagar Colony, Bawana, Delhi-110039.
Aged about 26 years
(Group 'B')
Teacher Primary
(Candidate towards the post code 01/18)
3. Brijesh Yadav
S/o Shri Rajesh Yadav
R/o H.No. 202, V.P.O Khera Dabar,
New Delhi-110073
Aged about 28 years
(Group 'B')
Teacher Primary
(Candidate towards the post code 01/18)
4. Rahul Drall
S/o Shri Raj Kumar Drall
R/o H. No. 702, Pana Doplan,
VPO- Tikri Kalan,
New Delhi-110041
Aged about 25 years
(Group 'B')
Teacher (Primary)
(Candidate towards the post code 01/18)
6 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch
Item 51 (C-4)
5. Mohit Chahar
S/o Shri Dharampal Chahar
R/o D-116, Gali No.2,
Prem Nagar, Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043.
Aged about 21 years
(Group 'B')
Teacher Primary ....Applicants
(Candidate towards the post code 01/18)
(By Advocate : Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. GNCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
A-Wing, 5th Floor,
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through its Secretary
C-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
Delhi- 92
3. South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Through its Commissioner,
Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre,
Minto Road, New Delhi-2 ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Mr. Amit Yadav with Dr.
Monika Bhargava, Ms. Neha Bairagee, Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, Mr.
Vishwendra Verma, Mr. Tanmay with Mr. Amit Anand and Ms.
Sriparna Chatterjee)
(v) O.A No. 2682/2019 :
1. Shilpa Behl
D/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Behl
W/o Shri Tushank Dhal
R/o C-120, East of Kailash,
Double Storey, DDA Flats,
Ist Floor, Delhi 110065,
Near Isckon Temple.
7 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch
Item 51 (C-4)
Aged about 25 years
(Group 'B')
(Candidate towards the post code 88/17)
2. Sheeba
D/o Sh Mukhtar Ahmad
R/o F-140, Street No. 5,
Shastri Park, New Delhi-110053
Aged about 28 years
(Group 'B') ...Applicants
(Candidate towards the post code 88/17)
(By Advocate : Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. GNCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
A-Wing, 5th Floor,
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate New Delhi
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through its Secretary,
FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
Delhi-92
3. Directorate of Education
Through its Director (GNCT of Delhi)
Old Secretariat,
Delhi-110054 ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Mr. Amit Yadav with Dr.
Monika Bhargava, Ms. Neha Bairagee, Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, Mr.
Vishwendra Verma, Mr. Tanmay with Mr. Amit Anand and Ms.
Sriparna Chatterjee)
(vi) OA No. 934/2019
Kalu Ram (SC)
S/o Sh. Prahalad Ram
R/o V. P. O. LalgarhJattan,
Teh. Sadul Shahar, Distt. Sriganga Nagar, Rajasthan
8 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch
Item 51 (C-4)
Aged about 31 years
Group' B' ...Applicant
(Candidate towards the post code 15/17)
(By Advocate : Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
VERSUS
1. GNCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
A-Wing, 5th Floor,
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate New Delhi
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through its Secretary,
FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
Delhi-92
3. Directorate of Education
Through its Director (GNCT of Delhi)
Old Secretariat,
Delhi-110054. ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Mr. Amit Yadav with Dr.
Monika Bhargava, Ms. Neha Bairagee, Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, Mr.
Vishwendra Verma, Mr. Tanmay with Mr. Amit Anand and Ms.
Sriparna Chatterjee)
(vii) OA No. 867/2019
Mohammed. Salik (post TGT Urdu)
Aged about 29 years
S/o Mohd. Sadiq Group-C
R/o Mohalla Sadat, Toda Road,
Malpura, Tonk,
Rajasthan-304502. ...Applicant
(By Advocate :Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
VERSUS
1. Chief Secretary,
Govt of NCT of Delhi
Delhi Secretariat I.P. Estate Delhi.
9 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch
Item 51 (C-4)
2. The Chairman
Delhi Subordinate Service Selection board
III floor UTC BuildingInstitutions
Viswas Nagar Shahdara Delhi 32.
3. Director
Directorate of Education
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Old Secretariat
I.P. Estate Delhi- 53. ...Respondents
(By Advocate : (By Advocate : Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Mr. Amit
Yadav with Dr. Monika Bhargava, Ms. Neha Bairagee, Mr. Anuj Kumar
Sharma, Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Mr. Tanmay with Mr. Amit Anand
and Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee)
(viii) OA No. 837/2019
Sulekha Yadav (OBC)
D/o Sh. Sube Singh Yadav
R/o B-240, Sainik Enclave,
Part-III, Jharoda Kalan,
Najafgarh Road,
New Delhi
Aged about 30 years
(Group B) ... Applicant
(Candidate towards the post code 149/17) Educational and Vocational
Guidance Counsellor) (Female)
(By Advocate :Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
VERSUS
1. GNCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
A-Wing, 5th Floor,
Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate New Delhi
2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB)
Through its Secretary,
FC-18, Karkardooma Institutional Area,
Delhi-92.
10 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch
Item 51 (C-4)
3. Directorate of Education
Through its Director (GNCT of Delhi)
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110054 ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT)
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Staff Selection Commission (SSC)
Through its Chairman, Block No. 12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
(By Advocate : Ms. Purnima Maheshwari, Mr. Amit Yadav with Dr.
Monika Bhargava, Ms. Neha Bairagee, Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, Mr.
Vishwendra Verma, Mr. Tanmay with Mr. Amit Anand and Ms.
Sriparna Chatterjee)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi :
As apprised by the counsels representing the parties that similar cause of action and common points of law are involved in all the OAs bearing Nos. 2333/2017 - Vishvender & Ors., 1657/2019 - Chandra Prakash Singh, 3328/2017-Arvind Kumar & Ors., 1152/2019 - Swati Aneja & Ors., 2682/2019 - Shilpa Behl & Anr., 934/2019 - Kalu Ram, 867/2019 - Mohammed Salik and 837/2019 -Sulekha Yadav, we are deciding them by a common order. However, for the sake of brevity and clarity facts of OA No. 2333/2017 titled Vishvender & Ors.
are discussed here.11 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch
Item 51 (C-4)
2. The instant OA has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
"8. a) Hold and declare that the respondents have wrongly and illegally not evaluated Tier-I OMR answer sheets of the applicants and
b) Direct the respondents to evaluate the OMR answer sheets of the applicants and declare the marks obtained by them in Tier-I exam and
c) Consider the applicants further in the selection process of recruitment to the posts of DASS Grade II (Post Code 40/13) in accordance with their merit position.
d) Accord all consequential benefits
e) Award costs of the proceedings; and
f) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicants."
3. The factual matrix of the case in OA No. 2333/2017 - Vishvender & Ors. vs. GNCTD & Ors. as per the counsel of the applicants is that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents to fill up various posts of DASS Grade II (Post Code 40/13), the applicants applied for the same and appeared in the Tier- I examination however, they could not find their marks in the notice dated 06.07.2017 issued by the respondents wherein it was mentioned that the applicants did not appear in the said examination. Aggrieved, they submitted representations on 07.07.2017. Thereafter the respondents upon receipt of such representations 12 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch Item 51 (C-4) modified the reason from non appearance of the applicants to that of 'non evaluation of OMR due to wrong roll no./other details'. According to the counsel for the applicants the respondents have not adhered to one stand and have kept on changing it which is untenable. As per the applicants there was no stipulation about wrong mentioning of Roll No. in the advertisement or in the admit card however, it was there in the question booklet which was provided to the applicants only 10 minutes before the commencement of exam. The said booklet also mentioned that the invigilators are required to declare that they have checked the Roll No. mentioned in the OMR sheets and the same are correct. He further argued that the applicants have committed a minor mistake in bubbling or mentioning correctly either their Roll Nos. Or Booklet Nos., which were inadvertent in nature due to anxiety and exam fear and the same can be condoned in the interest of justice and equity. Moreover, they have not indulged into any kind of mal practices. He also stated that their OMR sheets were very much identifiable without which the respondents could not have been able to mention reasons for non-evaluation of their OMR sheets. He highlighted that as the Tier-II exams were expected to be conducted any time excluding the applicants, they have knocked the doors of this Tribunal. 13 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch Item 51 (C-4)
4. The counsel of the applicants based his arguments on various grounds mentioned in the OA which are as follows :-
"A) Because the impugned order/action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified, hence liable to be set aside.
(B) Because no specific reason for rejecting the candidature of the applicants has been mentioned by the respondents. Moreover, they are changing stands.
(C) Because there has been no such stipulation in the advertisement or in the admit card. It was only in the question booklet given to the candidates 10 minutes prior to the commencement of the examination, that it is found that DSSSB at S. No. 4 of the instructions to candidates as mentioned that the answer sheet will not be evaluated and the candidates will be accorded zero marks if the complete details of roll No., question booklet no. etc. are not completely filled in the OMR answer sheet. A perusal of the said opening sheet also reveals that the invigilators is required to give a declaration that he has checked the roll No. written by the candidates on the question paper and the OMR sheets are correct.
From the above, it is clear that the DSSSB had taken unto itself, the task of verifying the filling of correct particulars by the candidates, at the time of examination through its agents/invigilators. (D) Because the aim of the selection is to find out the meritorious persons for purposes of appointment Elimination on hyper technical grounds cannot be countenanced in law. The error, if any, is an inadvertent omission on the part of the individual applicant due to examination related stress and hurry.
(E) Because the applicants have nothing to gain in an event they committed any inadvertent error.
(F) Because the applicants should not be made to suffer for an inadvertent error, if any.
14 OA No. 2333/2017 and batchItem 51 (C-4) (G) Because in Rohit Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr. (C.W.P. No. 13720/2012), the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana had issued directions to the State to accept the candidature of the candidate who had wrongly darkened his Roll No. in the OMR sheet, whereas in letters he has rightly mentioned his Roll No. but because of the error he was awarded zero marks.
(H) Because in Anil Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 657/2012 dated 02/01/2013, Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan had condoned the minor error committed by the candidate while filling the OMR sheet where he did not mention his gender in the OMR Sheet. The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to direct the State to permit the petitioner to rectify the error in the OMR sheet and to examine the OMR sheet on merit.
(I) Because in Ravindra Malik Vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors. (OA No. 2063/2012), the Principal Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal had allowed the OA of the candidate and directed the State to consider the case of the candidate to the post of Inspector (Central Excise) or to any other post as per his merit after condoning the mistake committed by the candidate where he had wrongly coded his ticket No, in the OMR sheet due to which he was awarded zero marks leading to his exclusion from the selection process. (J) Because in Arvind Kumar Kajla Vs. Union of India & Ors (OA No. 1802/2012), the Principal Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal had condoned the mistake committed by the candidate where he forgot to code his Roll No. and was awarded zero marks for the said mistake leading to his exclusion. (J) (K) Because in Subhanta Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11269/2011, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has held that minor omissions should not come in the way of evaluation of the OMR sheets of the candidates.
15 OA No. 2333/2017 and batchItem 51 (C-4) (L) Because in Writ Petition No. 1004/2012 (Neeraj Kumar's Case), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held to the effect that in the absence of any allegation of impersonation, not signing the application in block capital letters as per instructions of the recruiting agency cannot be a ground to reject the candidature and such directions are merely directory and not mandatory. (M) Because the applicants pray for condonation of the minor error if any committed by them."
5. When this matter was listed and heard for the very first time on 19.07.2017, the applicants were granted interim protection with regard to their participation in the Tier-II exam provisionally and the result thereof was directed not to be declared. The said order is reproduced below :-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant. MA-2496/2017 is filed for joining together is allowed.
1. It is submitted that the applicants who are 5 in number appeared for Tier-I examination on 25.06.2017 for selection to the post of DASS Grade II. Thereafter, the Respondents issued notice intimating the candidates that their marks have been uploaded which can be viewed by logging into their accounts. When the applicants logged into their account, they did not find their marks, but it was mentioned that they did not appear in the examination. They have enquired into and submitted representations to the respondents to give reasons for not showing their names. In response thereto, the respondents stated that the OMR was not evaluated due to wrong roll no./other details.
2. It is further submitted that without giving any valid reason, without notice and without giving opportunity to the applicants, the respondents cannot refuse to evaluate their answer sheets of Tier-I examination and cannot refuse to permit them to participate in the Tier-II examination.
3. Issue notice to the respondents by Dasti. The applicants counsel shall file proof of service. In the meantime, the respondents are directed to allow the applicants to participate in the Tier-II examination, provisionally, which is 16 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch Item 51 (C-4) likely to be held on 07.08.2017 or any further date. However, their result shall not be declared till further orders of the Tribunal."
6. It was further heard at some length on 22.10.2024 and the following order was passed :-
"Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that pursuant to interim order dated 19.07.2017, all the five applicants were permitted to sit in the Tier II Examination. However, only the Applicant No. 3, Deepak Panwar could succeed in the said examination.
2. The respondents had been directed to produce the original OMR sheets. However, only the OMR sheet for Applicant No. 1 was produced in the sealed cover. We opened the sealed cover and perused the same.
3. The respondents are directed to bring the original OMR sheets of all the five applicants in a sealed cover on the next date of hearing.
4. The OMR sheet is returned to learned counsel for the respondents.
5. List the present OA along with OA No. 3328/2017, OA No. 837/2019, OA No. 867/2019, OA No. 934/2019, OA No. 1152/2019, OA No. 1657/2019 and OA No. 2682/2019 on
07.01.2025."
7. To put more strength in his arguments, counsel for the applicants relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P(C) No. 6191/2020 dated 05.11.2020 in Vinayak Ishwar Bhise vs. UOI & Ors. wherein the impugned rejection order of the applicant was quashed considering the filling of wrong date of birth as a bona fide mistake. The counsel further relied upon various other decisions of different Courts which are listed below :-
17 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch
Item 51 (C-4)
(i) Union of India vs. Sumit Kumar in W.P.C. No. 4829/2017 ;
(ii) Hulash Nayak vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.-W.P. (S) No. 5502/2018 ;
(iii) Union of India & Ors. vs. Gudura Raja Surya Praveen - (2015 SCC Online Hyd 437);
(iv) Satveer Singh vs. UOI & Ors. - Writ A. No. 30855/2017 and
(v) SSC vs. Darpan Sharma - W.P No. 3761/2018.
8. Opposing the OA, counsel for the respondents submitted that the evaluation of Answer sheets are done by computer automatically without human intervention. Moreover, a candidate is identified through his Roll No. bubbled by him which if found incorrect disables the computer to detect the identity of a candidate. With regard to the applicants' argument about question booklet series, he averred that the same indicates the order in which questions are arranged and consequently answers are also arranged as per question booklet series. He added that in case question booklet series are not marked, it would not reveal the sequence in which questions are arranged which would further be an obstacle in applying the answer key. Thus, clear instructions were given to the candidates in this regard in the OMR sheet itself. Due to this reason the answer sheets of the candidates who had failed to bubble their roll numbers or question booklet series correctly could not be evaluated. With regard to the argument about change of reason for non evaluation of 18 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch Item 51 (C-4) OMR sheet, he took plea of technical glitch which was later redressed. Also that the Roll No. is the identity of a candidate and question booklet series indicates the arrangement of questions, both these are very crucial for evaluation of the answer sheets as according to the respondents if the Roll no. is not identified then how and to whom the marks can be awarded. He added that a candidate who has not been able to bubble his roll no./question booklet series correctly cannot be termed as a meritorious one. Concluding his arguments counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of this OA.
9. Heard both the parties, perused the material on record, and considered the binding precedents. We have observed that on 26.03.2025, when the matter was finally heard and reserved for Order, the counsel for the parties were directed to file their written synopsis within two weeks. The same has been filed by the applicants which is taken on record wherein the counsel highlighted that no instructions or warning were issued to the candidates about non-evaluation of OMR Sheet and consequent cancellation of candidature due to incorrect bubbling of roll number. He also highlighted that contrary to the averments of the respondents the OMR sheets of some of the candidates have been evaluated namely -
(i) Kalu Ram - Applicant of OA No. 934/2019 and
(ii) Chander Prakash Singh - Applicant of OA No. 1657/2019 19 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch Item 51 (C-4) Moreover, a candidate is required to fill his roll no. numerically. However, it is not in dispute in all the OAs that the roll no. has been correctly mentioned in the numeric form as bubbling/shading the circles is an additional mode provided to the candidates. Once the Roll No. in numeric form is correctly mentioned evaluation of the OMR Sheet could have been done manually as the aim of the SSC is to select meritorious candidates for which trivial errors should be ignored. While concluding his arguments, he highlighted that vide order dated 24.05.2019 interim orders to keep one post vacant are operating in connected cases in OA 3328/2017 - Arvind Kumar & Ors. and OA No. 1657/2019 - Chandra Prakash Singh.
10. We have observed that the instructions in the question booklet clearly state that proper bubbling of the Roll Number is mandatory. Specifically:
Point No. 5 warns that failure to fill the Roll Number correctly would result in zero marks.
Points No. 14 and 16 provide illustrations and caution that only properly bubbled entries will be read by the scanning machine.
The OMR sheet also includes a note that multiple bubbles for a single entry will be treated as incorrect.20 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch
Item 51 (C-4) The argument that the OMR sheets of few applicants were evaluated does not give right to the applicants to take advantage of the wrong done once.
11. It would be pertinent to mention here that the issue in hand is no more res integra as recently the very Bench of this Tribunal has decided this very issue in OA No. 1832/2023 - Ms. Kusum Gupta vs. DSSSB, dated 06.12.2024 which was dismissed placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Mahendra Singh, Civil Appeal No. 4807/2022, decided on 25.07.2022 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that adherence to examination instructions is paramount, and deviation from such instructions--particularly regarding the encoding of Roll Number on the OMR sheet--cannot be condoned, even in cases where the mistake is claimed to be inadvertent. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the said judgment lay down that such instructions are not mere formalities but essential for the integrity of the examination process. For the sake of clarity paragraphs 13 & 14 read as under:-
"13. The sole reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High Court of time gap between the filling up of the application form and the examination, and hence inadvertent filling up of OMR sheet in Hindi by the writ petitioner is based on surmises and conjectures. Once the writ petitioner has filled the application form in English, having also signed in English, it cannot be said to be an inadvertent mistake when he has written the para in Hindi. Such writing in different language violates the instruction clearly mentioned in the advertisement.
14. The argument of Mr. Bhushan that use of different language is not followed by any consequence and, 21 OA No. 2333/2017 and batch Item 51 (C-4) therefore, cannot be said to be mandatory is not tenable. The language chosen is relevant to ensure that the candidate who has filled up the application form alone appears in the written examination to maintain probity. The answer sheets have to be in the language chosen by the candidate in the application form. It is well settled that if a particular procedure in filling up the application form is prescribed, the application form should be filled up following that procedure alone."
In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the present case is fairly and squarely covered by the reasoning adopted in OA No. 1832/2023 (Kusum Gupta) and the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Singh's case (supra). Accordingly this OA lacks merit, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/