Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Sunil K K vs Post Kerala Circle on 15 December, 2025
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00662/2022
Monday, this the 15th day of December, 2025
CO RAM:
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Sunil K.K., S/o K.Kumaran, 47 years,
working as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer,
Nedumkandam P.O., Idukki.
Residing at Kottutharayil House, Idukki Kavala,
Kattappana Village, Idukki Taluk,
Kattappana P.O, Idukki - 685 508. ...Applicant
(By Advocates : Mr.Nirmal V Nair & Ms.Arathi Prabhakaran)
versus
1. Union of India,
represented by the Secretary to Department of Posts,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Postal Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Idukki Division, O/o.Superintendent of Post Offices,
Idukki Division, Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki - 685 584.
4. Assistant Director (Estt. & Rectt),
O/o.the Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Postal Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033. ...Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr.Sreejith.N, ACGSC)
A S Peethambaran 2025.12.15 15:37:17+05'30'
-2-
The Original Application having been heard on 28 th November
2025, the Tribunal on 15th December, 2025 delivered the following:
ORDER
HON'BLE Mrs.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant was a candidate in the selection conducted to the post of Postman/Mail Guard for the vacancies of the year 2022 earmarked for Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS). The applicant's candidature for appearing in the Data Entry Skill Test (DEST) was rejected by the respondents for the reason that he had not written the Question Booklet number for Paper No.III in the examination. As per the final answer key published for the examination he has secured the minimum marks needed for qualifying the Paper No.III. However, since he had not written the Question Booklet number in the OMR Answer Sheet he was not permitted to appear.
2. The claim of the applicant is three fold. One, that the non writing of his roll number is a non fatal error. Two, Paper No.III is a two part examination which has descriptive test and OMR (MCQ). Three, it is purely a qualifying paper and his selection would depend upon his performance in Papers I & II. Annexure A-1, which is assailed, is the reply to the representation submitted by him as regards his eligibility.
A S Peethambaran 2025.12.15 15:37:17+05'30' -3-
3. The facts of the case are as under - The applicant was appointed as a GDS in the Nedumkandam Post Office with effect from 15.06.2011. He continues to work there as GDS MD. While so, the 2 nd respondent had notified the Competitive Examination limited to GDS for recruitment to the posts of Postman/Mail Guard and Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) for the vacancy year 2022 scheduled to be held on 04.09.2022. This notification is produced as Annexure A-2. As per the terms of Annexure A-2 in order to appear in the DEST ie., Paper IV the candidate should score the minimum qualifying marks in Paper I and Paper II combined and should also secure the minimum qualifying marks in the Paper III separately. It is pertinent to note that DEST is a test conducted on a computer having a duration of only 15 minutes and the evaluation of DEST is done through online. The revised pattern and syllabus for examinations conducted for appointment to the posts of MTS, Postman and Mail Guard has been issued by the 1st respondent by instructions dated 05.04.2022, which is produced as Annexure A-3. The following criteria listed in Annexure A-3 are pertinent here. The same reads as follow -
i. Selection of candidates will be based on their performance in Paper I and Paper II.
ii. Provided, the candidate secures the minimum qualifying marks in Paper III and DEST.
A S Peethambaran 2025.12.15 15:37:17+05'30' -4- iii. Combined total of marks secured in Paper I and Paper II will be considered for selection to the posts of Postman/Mail Guard.
iv. All those candidates who secure the minimum qualifying marks in Paper I and II combined and the minimum qualifying marks in Paper III separately will be entitled to appear in the DEST.
v. All those candidates who secure the minimum qualifying standards in DEST, will be eligible for being considered in merit list for selection as Postman/Mail Guard. vi. But the merit list will be prepared only on the basis of total marks secured in Paper I and Paper II.
4. It is, therefore, apparent from Annexure A-3 that the Paper III and DEST are conducted only to assess the knowledge of local language of the candidate and the basic computer skills of the candidate. Though minimum qualifying marks are prescribed for both these papers, the marks secured therein are ultimately not reckoned for determining the order of merit in the selection.
5. The applicant had applied pursuant to Annexure A-2 notification and had appeared in the examination held on 04.09.2022. He had duly entered all the details including his roll number, the number and series of Question Booklets for Paper I and II and had also duly bubbled all the answers also. According to the examination practice followed, a carbon copy of the OMR answer sheet and the copy of the question booklet A S Peethambaran 2025.12.15 15:37:17+05'30' -5- number are retained by the candidates. A copy of the OMR answer sheet of the applicant is produced as Annexure A-4. However, due to an oversight he had not written the number of the Question Booklet issued for Paper No.III and on comparison of the answers given by him to the various questions in the Question Booklet for Paper No.III issued to him with the final answer key published by the Department, it was ascertained that he had correctly answered 23 out of the 30 objective questions asked. The benchmark for qualifying in Paper No.III is 17 marks which the applicant has cleared. Hence the applicant claims to have qualified. This is produced as Annexure A-5 and Annexure A-6. It is also submitted that the applicant had also scored 78 marks out of 100 in Paper I and 38 marks out of 50 in Paper II. Since his name was not seen in the final list, he submitted a representation, produced as Annexure A-7 dated 05.11.2022. Annexure A-7 was rejected by Annexure A-1 communication dated 11.11.2022.
6. It is submitted that the applicant soon after appearing in the examination on 04.09.2022 met with a motor vehicle accident on 19.09.2022 and it has caused fracture to the shaft of his right tibia and malleolus fracture to his right leg. He was bedridden as the injuries have affected his mobility. This is supported by Annexure A-10 A S Peethambaran 2025.12.15 15:37:17+05'30' -6- medical certificates. In view of this it is submitted that the applicant was unable to challenge his non inclusion in the DEST scheduled on 13.11.2022.
7. The applicant has cited decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Sumit Kumar, W.P.(C) No.4829/2017 dated 10.08.2017 wherein it was held that "the department should be conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the career of young candidates. They are not being tested for their skill in filling up the form. They were to be tested with the objective of selecting the best and most meritorious candidates on the basis of the answers given by them in the examination." The applicant seeks evaluation of Paper III based on Annexure A-5 question booklet and to permit him to appear in DEST and further to keep one post vacant in Idukki Division pending disposal of the O.A. This prayer was allowed on 27.03.2023 as an interim order.
8. The single question to be addressed in this O.A is whether non incorporation of question booklet number in an answer sheet is a fatal error especially when Paper is qualifying in nature and there was also descriptive question included and the Paper is not fully objective.
A S Peethambaran 2025.12.15 15:37:17+05'30' -7-
9. The respondents have fundamentally taken the position that there has been negligence on the part of the applicant and the fact that part of the Paper is descriptive is not material for evaluation of the OMR Sheet because the Question Paper series is entered separately in the descriptive portion of the Paper and hence it was able to be evaluated. However, in the absence of the Question Paper series in the OMR sheet they were unable to evaluate the answer sheet. The respondents have cited the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J&K Board of Professional Entrance Examination & ors. vs. Pankaj Sharma & anr., Civil Appeal No.7158/2019 read with order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs. G.Hemalathaa & Ors., Civil Appeal No.6669/2019 wherein it has been held that instructions are to be followed strictly and failure to follow the instructions impinges upon the rights of the applicant. This finding is directly applicable to the case in hand. The respondents have further cited a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in the case of Mayank Kumar Singh vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors., W.P.(S) No.2909/2024. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under -
14. I have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties across the Bar and perused the materials available on record. Before delving deep into the matter, it would be apt to examine the issues involved in the writ petition, which are as under :-
A S Peethambaran 2025.12.15 15:37:17+05'30' -8-
(i) Whether the error committed by the petitioner is trivial in nature which needs to be ignored?
(ii) Whether rejection of candidature of petitioner was on hyper technical ground?
(iii) Whether sympathy has any role to play in such type of cases in which the rejection has been done on the mandatory requirement of the terms and conditions mentioned in the admit card?
(iv) Whether process of electronic scanning by machine can be equated with that of manual evaluation of the OMR sheet?
15. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner has admittedly committed mistake in darkening the bubble on the OMR answer script with respect to his roll number, which resulted in his answer-sheet not evaluated by the scanning machine. The instructions on the admit card read as under :-
"3. Answer sheet will be processed by Electronic device. Invalidation of Answer sheet due to incomplete / incorrect filling of relevant circle of Roll No. and Question Booklet Series in the OMR Answer Sheet shall result in cancellation of candidature. Any deficiency in filling up OMR Answer Sheet shall be the sole responsibility of the candidates. Please do not writ or mark on this Answer sheet outside the demarcated areas. It will invalidate your Answer Sheet. Candidates are advised to read the instruction carefully, given in the cover and back page of the question Booklet and Back side of his OMR Sheet before attempting the questions.
4. All other information i.e. Roll No., Registration No., Question Booklet Series etc (in word or number or both as required) must be furnished on the respective column at OMR Answer Sheet as per instruction given in the OMR Answer Sheet."
16. From perusal of the instructions quoted above, it is as clear as day that the candidates were forewarned about taking care while filling up the OMR answer script. The reasons are not far to understand for the candidates, because the OMR answer sheets are electronically checked for the purpose of ensuring minimum human intervention so as to A S Peethambaran 2025.12.15 15:37:17+05'30' -9- ensure secrecy and credibility of the entire examination process. The sanctity of the instructions issued for the conduct of examination and consequence of their violation has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. Vs. G. Hemalathaa & Anr. (supra), wherein it has been held that instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory having force of law and they have to be strictly complied with and it has also been held that strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the instructions are of paramount importance. The relevant paragraphs-8 to 13 are quoted herein below :-
"8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. The Instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to be strictly complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions 2024:JHHC:22622 8 is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission [M. Vennila v. T.N. Public Service Commission, 2006 SCC OnLine Mad 465 : (2006) 3 Mad LJ 376].
9. The High Court after summoning and perusing the answer sheet of the respondent was convinced that there was infraction of the Instructions. However, the High Court granted the relief to the respondent on a sympathetic consideration on humanitarian ground. The judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent in Taherakhatoon v. Salambin Mohammad [Taherakhatoon v. Salambin Mohammad, (1999) 2 SCC 635] and Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan [Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 6 SCC 545 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 951] in support of her arguments that we should not entertain this appeal in the absence of any substantial questions of law are not applicable to the facts of this case.
10. In spite of the finding that there was no adherence to the Instructions, the High Court granted the relief, ignoring the mandatory nature of the Instructions. It cannot be said that such exercise of discretion should be affirmed by us, A S Peethambaran 2025.12.15 15:37:17+05'30' -10- especially when such direction is in the teeth of the Instructions which are binding on the candidates taking the examinations.
11. In her persuasive appeal, Ms Mohana sought to persuade us to dismiss the appeal which would enable the respondent to compete in the selection to the post of Civil Judge. It is a well-known adage that, hard cases make bad law. In Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India [Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 721 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 919] , Venkataramiah, J., held that : (SCC p. 735, para 13) "13. ... Exercise of such power of moderation is likely to create a feeling of distrust in the process of selection to public appointments which is intended to be fair and impartial. It may also result in the violation of the principle of equality and may lead to arbitrariness. The cases pointed out by the High Court are no doubt hard cases, but hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law. In the circumstances, we lean in favour of a strict construction of the Rules and hold that the High Court had no such power under the Rules."
12. Roberts, C.J. in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Inc. [Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. Inc., 2009 SCC OnLine US SC 65 : 556 US 868 (2009)] held that : (SCC OnLine US SC) "Extreme cases often test the bounds of established legal principles. There is a cost to yielding to the desire to correct the extreme case, rather than adhering to the legal principle. That cost has been demonstrated so often that it is captured in a legal aphorism:"Hard cases make bad law"."
13. After giving a thoughtful consideration, we are afraid that we cannot approve the judgment of the High Court as any order in favour of the candidate who has violated the mandatory Instructions would be laying down bad law. The other submission made by Ms.Mohana that an order can be passed by us under Article 142 of the Constitution which shall not be treated as a precedent also does not appeal to us.
A S Peethambaran 2025.12.15 15:37:17+05'30' -11-
17. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Jai Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra), decided in Special Appeal No. 90 of 2018 and the same was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.A. (C) No. 19089 of 2018. The Division Bench has been observed at page-12, as follows :-
"... It is, therefore, clear that including TET as a minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher is to improve the performance standard. We have before us writ petitioners who have not even been able to correctly fill their Registration Number, Roll Number in the OMR Answer Sheet and it is these teachers who are now insisting that a direction should be issued by the Court to ignore the mistakes committed by them and direct the examining body to conduct a manual check of all the OMR Answer sheets.
To examine the issue that have been raised before the Court by the candidates more by way of sympathy then on any legal principle it needs to be remembered that the Examining Body had informed the candidates time and again the necessity of filing the information accurately in the OMR Answer Sheets with a clear instruction that their OMR Answer Sheet would not be evaluated if any mistake is committed. At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that the candidates had been informed when the advertisement was issued on 21 August 2017 that they should visit the Website of the Board for the ascertaining procedure that was required to be followed for filling up the information in the OMR Answer Sheet."
18. Further, similar issue fell for consideration before the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Chandra Jat, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4368 (supra), wherein, the Rajasthan High Court has been pleased to dismiss the original application filed by the applicant, by which the Tribunal has directed to evaluate the OMR answer sheet, as the applicant was found to have secured cut off marks or more marks than the persons appointed, despite the fact that the applicant has incorrectly darkened the wrong bubble / circle in the column of roll number in the OMR sheet. The Rajasthan High Court relying A S Peethambaran 2025.12.15 15:37:17+05'30' -12- on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases including in the case of G. Hemlathaa (supra) was of the view that wrong indication of roll number by darkening the wrong bubble by the respondent was apparently fatal. This judgment of the Rajasthan High Court has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.A. (C) No. 16738 of 2021.
19. Similar issue also fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Aditya Isha Prachi Tirkey vs. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission & Ors. (supra), reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Jhar 28 wherein it has been observed in paragraphs-8 and 9, which reads thus :-
" .........At this stage this Court cannot direct the Commission to correct the same because it would amount to manipulation in the OMR Sheet. A candidate is supposed to follow the instructions and such mistakes are not expected by the aspirants appearing in the State Civil Service Examination. May be the petitioner has not intentionally darkened digit 6 instead of 8, but sympathy has no place in the eyes of law. The law will prevail in view of the terms and conditions as mentioned in the Advertisement, Admit Card and that of the Rules framed by the JPSC. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Vijay Singh & Ors. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, wherein, taking into consideration its previous decisions, including the one in Manish Ujwal's case (2005) 13 SCC 744, the law was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as follows :-
"30.5 In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an A S Peethambaran 2025.12.15 15:37:17+05'30' -13- erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematically precision is not always possible."
9. If the contention of the learned Senior Counsel is accepted regarding re-evaluation of the OMR sheet, it will amount to opening flood gate and a blanket order has to be issued regarding entertaining of those candidates, who have made incorrect entry in violation of clause 4 of the terms and conditions as mentioned in the admit card. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in such matters. No interference is warranted in this writ petition."
10. Consequently the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand rejected the claim of the petitioner therein. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Jagdish Chandra Jat, Civil Writ Petition No.12323/2020 held that lapses of making entry in the OMR Sheet are neither immaterial nor trivial. The Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.No.021/00298/2020 in an identical factual matrix has dismissed the case of the applicant therein. All the decisions which have been brought out here are orders which has distinguished Annexure A-16 order which has been relied upon by the applicant. Even in the particular instance cited by the applicant is a case where the applicant immediately on leaving the examination hall has realized his error and sought to rectify it. The applicant in that instance has not waited for the declaration of the result to solve the issue which in this case has, which are the actual facts of this case where the applicant A S Peethambaran 2025.12.15 15:37:17+05'30' -14- has sought appeal against the disqualification after the declaration of the results. Permitting corrections and separate evaluation of OMR Sheet subsequent to the declaration of the results brings into question the sanctity of the examination process itself and opens the door to malpractices. Further, the claim of the applicant that there was a delay on account of having met with an accident was also subsequent to the date of declaration of the results and not immediately post the examination and therefore would not match the facts of the case. The plea of the applicant that he is now 50 years and this would be his last chance to appear and since he had qualified in Paper I and Paper II he would have been eligible to be considered. This is an appeal for sympathy which makes a bad law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. In view of the above, the claim of the applicant is rejected and the O.A is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dated, this the 15th day of December, 2025)
V. RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp
A S Peethambaran 2025.12.15 15:37:17+05'30'
-15-
List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00662/2022
1. Annexure A-1 - A true copy of the Order No.B2/Postman- MG/MTS Exam/2022 dated 10.11.2022 issued by the 3 rd respondent.
2. Annexure A-2 - A true copy of the notification No.Rectt/12-2/2022 dated 15.07.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent.
3. Annexure A-3 - A true copy of the O.M.F No. 17-08/2018-SPN-1 issued by the 1st respondent dated 05.04.2022.
4. Annexure A-4 - A true copy of the OMR answer sheet of the applicant in the Competitive Examination conducted on 04.09.2022.
5. Annexure A-5 - A true copy of the Question Booklet for Paper III issued to the applicant.
6. Annexure A-6 - A true copy of the final answer Key for the Competitive Examination held on 04.09.2022 published by notice no.Rectt/12-2/2022(CON) dated 06.10.2022 issued by the 4 th respondent.
7. Annexure A-7 - A true copy of the representation dated 05.11.2022 submitted by the applicant.
8. Annexure A-8 - A true copy of the cover of the postal article through which Annexure A1 was communicated to the applicant.
9. Annexure A-9 - A true copy of the postal tracking status of Annexure A8 as obtained from www.indiapost.gov.in
10. Annexure A-10 - A true copy of the certificate dated 29.09.2022 issued by the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Nedumkandam.
11. Annexure A-11 - A true copy of the judgment dated 10.08.2017 in W.P.(C). No.4829/2017 on the files of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
12. Annexure A-12 - A true copy of the order dated 22.11.2019 in S.L.P.(C). Diary No(s).18743/2018 on the files of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
A S Peethambaran 2025.12.15 15:37:17+05'30' -16-
13. Annexure A-13 - A true copy of the judgment dated 05.01.2016 in W.A. (MD) No.909 of 2015 on the files of the Madurai Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court.
14. Annexure A-14 - A true copy of the judgment dated 07.12.2015 in O.A. No.1413/2015 on the files of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal.
15. Annexure A-15 - A true copy of the judgment dated 19.05.2016 in W.P.(C). No.4519/2016 on the files of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
16. Annexure A-16 - A true copy of the judgment dated 29.07.2019 in W.P.(C). No.8131/2019 on the files of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
17. Annexure R-1(A) - True copy of the instructions issued to the candidates in the Question Booklet.
18. Annexure R-1(B) - True copy of the instructions provided on the OMR sheet.
19. Annexure R-1(C) - True copy of the judgment dated 19.08.2021 in WP(C) No.12323/2020 of the Hon'ble High Court Rajasthan.
20. Annexure R-1(D) - True copy of relevant page of Part II of Appendix 37 of Postal Manual Vol. IV Part II.
______________________ A S Peethambaran 2025.12.15 15:37:17+05'30'