Allahabad High Court
Shabbu Malik vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 21 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:208793
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 16945 of 2025
Shabbu Malik
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui, Mustaqeem Ahmad
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., Siddharth Singhal
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Short counter affidavit filed by Shri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 today is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Mustaqeem Ahmad, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Shri Rahul Malviya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
3. Though a counter affidavit has been filed by Shri Siddharth Singhal on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 but learned counsel for the writ petitioner has made a statement at the Bar that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit and the writ petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.
4. With the consent of parties, the case is being decided at this fresh stage itself.
5. The case of the writ petitioner is that he after qualifying for high school in the year 2016, intermediate examination in 2018 and possessing a certificate from National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology in month of March, 2021 had applied for and appeared in the examination for the post of Junior Assistant pursuant to an advertisement No.8-Exam/2023, for the post of Junior Assistant conducted by Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission. An admit card came to be issued to the writ petitioner bearing Roll No.00125644 and Registration No.55300132717. The examination centre of the writ petitioner was at Center Code bearing District Code No.28-Ghaziabad, 141, Kailashwati Inter College, GT Road, Arthala, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad.
6. At the time of the examination, the question booklet No.DG3 bearing No.2261189351 came to be issued to the writ petitioner. However, the writ petitioner in the OMR sheet had filled up the number as 2661189351.
7. Thereafter, the results were declared, but the name of the writ petitioner did not find place, particularly on the premise that the writ petitioner that there was incorrect filling of Question Booklet number in the OMR sheet.
8. Questioning the impugned action on part of the respondents in not declaring the result of the writ petitioner, the present petition has been preferred seeking a mandamus directing the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Lucknow to declare the result of the writ petitioner and to permit the writ petitioner to appear in the typing test, which is scheduled for 26.11.2025. Further relief was sought to undertake corrective measures in that regard.
9. This Court entertained the petition on 13.11.2025 and required the learned Standing Counsel and Shri Siddharth Singhal, who appears for the Commission, to file their response. A short counter affidavit has been filed by Shri Siddharth Singhal on behalf of the Commission, sworn by the Examination Controller, Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Lucknow.
10. Since the statement has been made by learned Standing Counsel that he does not propose to file any response and the writ petitioner had also made a statement that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit to the response filed on behalf of the Commission, thus, this Court is proceeding with the matter.
11. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner is sought to argue that the impugned action of the respondents in not declaring the result of the writ petitioner on the premise that the writ petitioner had filled up incorrect incorporation of the number of the question booklet in the OMR Sheet cannot be sustained. Elaborating the submission, it is submitted that due to the pressure and tension which the writ petitioner was facing at the time of participating in the written examination, as a student, for certain reasons beyond the and control and comprehension of the writ petitioner incorrect Question number of the Booklet stood incorporated in the OMR Sheet pursuant to which the present situation has arisen.
12. Submission is that the said error is a bonafide error, which cannot be said to be fatal, particularly when such type of human errors often arises in the case of students who appear in the examinations, as they are not having any expertise over the said matter as normally, the only object of the student is to fill up the OMR sheets and on account of the said tension and anxiety the writ petitioner overlooked the said aspect of matter that he had to re- tally the numbers of the question booklet number which was to be written in the OMR Sheet. According to him, the said inadvertance or human error ought to have been overlooked and opportunity could have been accorded to the writ petitioner to rectify the said defect, which is not fatal. He seeks to rely upon the judgement of the Co-ordinate Bench in Writ-A No. 20396 of 2019 (Manoj Kumar and 99 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another) alongwith connected writ petitions decided on 14.02.2020. Strength has also been drawn on a co-ordinate Bench judgment in Writ-A No. 2484 of 2020 (Santosh Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Another) passed on 18.02.2020.
13. Shri Siddharth Singhal, while countering the submission so made by learned counsel for the writ petitioner, has submitted that none of the contentions so raised have any legs to stand. Submission is that there happens to be a specific condition under the heading of 'Instructions to Candidates', according to which, in case of making a wrong entry of question booklet number on the OMR Sheet, the evaluation of OMR answer Sheet shall not be done, for which the candidate himself/herself will be responsible for it. According to him, it is even not possible for the commission to give opportunity to an individual candidate to correct the error, particularly when the secrecy and confidentiality would be sacrificed or compromised.
14. He relies upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Vinay Kumar Vs. State of UP and others in Special Appeal No.33 of 2022 (arising out of Writ-A No.15951 of 2021) decided on 27.01.2022 and also in Writ-A No. 6034 of 2024 (Banwari Lal Vs. Union of India and Another) decided on 23.04.2024 as well as the judgement in Writ-A No.6444 of 2022 (Neesha Prajapati Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) decided on 06.06.2022 and also in Writ-A No.4070 of 2024 (Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and 60 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) decided on 30.05.2020.
15. Shri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel has supported the argument of learned counsel for the Commission. However, he submits that he has nothing to add accept to the fact that once the writ petitioner had made incorrect entry of question booklet number in the OMR Sheet, then the same is an error which is not liable to be rectified or corrected by the passage of time.
16. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record. Facts are not in issue. It is not disputed that the writ petitioner had applied in pursuance of Advertisement No.8-Examination-2023 for the post of Junior Assistant. The writ petitioner was issued an admit card and he was allotted a centre.
17. It is further not in dispute that the question booklet No.DG3 was bearing No.2261189351, however, the writ petitioner in his OMR Sheet had made an incorrect entry of the question booklet number as No.2661189351. The instructions for the candidates as stipulated in the question booklet DG3 bearing No.2261189351 read as under:
"It is compulsory for the candidate to fill all entries on the OMR Answer Sheet like Registration No., Roll No., Question Booklet No., Exam Centre Code and Examination Date etc. using Black/Blue ball point pen. In case of making no entry or making wrong entry of Question Booklet No. on OMR Answer Sheet, the evaluation of OMR Answer Sheet shall not be done and the candidate himself herself will be responsible for it."
18. A bare look of the instructions would reveal that, first of all, it is compulsory for a candidate to fill the entries in the OMR Sheet like Registration No., Roll No., Question Booklet No., Exam Centre Code and Examination Data etc., using black and blue ball point pen and a further condition is that in case of making no entry or making wrong entry of question booklet number in the OMR Sheet, the evaluation of the OMR answer Sheet shall not be done and the candidate himself/herself would be responsible for it. Bearing in mind the said instructions, the issue raised by the writ petitioner is to be addressed.
19. Apparently, the said guidelines are not under challenge. However, the said guidelines are self-speaking and they have been itself typed and incorporated in the question booklet, which is made available to the students at the time of examination. It is also reflected in the OMR Sheet, which is being provided to the students. Once the position being so, it can be safely said that the said instructions were within the knowledge of the students. Similar controversy came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in Vinay Kumar (supra), wherein the following observation has been made:
"12. On perusal of photocopy of OMR Sheet of writ-petitioner/appellant, it is clear that apart from two subjects namely History and Civics, the writ-petitioner/appellant has answered question no.2 of 3rd subject namely Economics. Thus the writ- petitioner has attempted/answered 3 subjects instead of 2 subjects. As per instructions provided by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Board, on OMR sheet specific instructions has been mentioned that incomplete or wrongly filed up OMR Sheet will not be accepted. The instructions No. 6, 9 and 12 of OMR sheet are as under:-
"6. ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ? ??????? 9. ????? ????? ?? ???????????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???????????? ???????? "???????? ?? ????? 12. ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????"
13. From the above instructions, it is more than clear that the candidates were repeatedly forewarned about taking care while filling up the OMR answer sheet and indicating their particulars. The reasons are not far to understand, inasmuch as, the OMR answer sheets are electronically checked for the purpose of ensuring minimum human intervention so as to ensure secrecy and credibility of the entire examination process. When the OMR answer sheets are evaluated electronically, any mistake committed by the candidate would be detected and its treatment is electronically fed, i.e., in case of any discrepancy in the particulars of the candidates indicated in the OMR answer sheet, same are not to be evaluated.
14. The plea raised that the mistake committed by the appellant was minor and technical, which on the face of it may appear to be so, however, in case the correction of said mistake is permitted, the same would surely compromise the secrecy of the OMR answer sheet and the evaluation process, inasmuch as, on a request being made to permit correction, the OMR answer sheet would have to be taken out from the entire lot, the same would be corrected, resulting in identification of the OMR answer sheet with respect to a particular candidate and a possibility of further tinkering with the OMR answer sheet cannot be ruled out.
...............
...............
20. Apart from the same a clarification was issued by the Government on March 5, 2021 with reference to the recruitment process. It was mentioned therein that in case any discrepancy is found in the on-line application, the candidature is liable to be rejected. The aforesaid clarification was subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 322 of 2021 (Jyoti Yadav and another Vs. State of U.P. and others), whereby bunch of petitions were dismissed vide order dated April 8, 2021. The clarification dated March 5, 2021 was upheld. It is observed in the aforesaid order that for the mistakes committed by individual candidates, the entire process of selection may not be delayed and put to prejudice. The norms prescribed to have definiteness in the process cannot be held to be arbitrary or irrational. Paragraph 15 of the aforesaid judgement is reproduced below:-
"If, at every juncture, any mistakes by the candidates were to be addressed and considered at individual level, the entire process of selection may stand delayed and put to prejudice. In order to have definiteness in the matter, certain norms had to be prescribed and prescription of such stipulations cannot be termed to be arbitrary or irrational. Every candidate was put to notice twice over, by the Guidelines and the Advertisement."
...............
...............
24. In Special Appeal Defective No. 117 of 2014 (Km. Richa Pandey vs. Examination Regulatory Authority and another) decided on February 18, 2014, the Division Bench of this Court observed as follows:-
"The OMR sheets are provided to the candidates to speed up evaluation through help of computer. In case we accept the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the language in which the petitioner had written essay could be checked up by the examiner before feeding answer book into computer, the entire process of expediting the results will be lost. Where OMR sheets are to be examined with aid of the computer, it is not advisable and practical to direct that each OMR sheet should be checked by the examiners and the columns, which have not been filled up may be filled up by the examiner himself with the aid of the language used by the candidates for writing essay. We are informed by Standing Counsel that about seven lacs candidates had appeared in the test.
With such large number of candidates appearing in TET Examination 2013 it would not have been possible nor it was feasible for examiners to look into the answer sheets individually before feeding them into computer for correcting any mistakes.
We agree with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge that where the applicant is not capable of correctly filling up the form, she is not entitled to any discretionary relief from the Court.
The special appeal is dismissed."
25. A similar controversy has also been dealt by this Court in Special Appeal No. 90 of 2018 decided on April 25, 2018 (Jai Karan Singh and 52 others v. State of U.P. and others). The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows:-
"The writ petitioners had admittedly given incorrect information in the OMR Answer sheet relating to either the Registration Number, the Roll Number or Question Booklet Series and the Language attempted and that is why their results have not been declared. The manual check can be conducted but the larger issue before the Court is whether such a direction should be given at all. In our opinion, it is for the examining body to work out a method for the recruitment process and the manner in which Answer Sheets is evaluated and once clear instructions have been given to the candidates that incorrect information relating to Registration Number, Roll Number, Question Booklet Series and Language attempted would lead to non- declaration of the result, the examining body should not be directed to conduct a manual check 72, 876 OMR answer-sheets. This would take substantial time and ultimately result in causing delay in the declaration of the result. It is this delay that was sought to be eliminated by requiring the candidates to give reasons in the OMR Answer Sheet so that they could be scanned by electronic means.
The error committed by the candidates cannot be said to be minor in nature. It is the Registration Number, Roll Number that determines identity of the candidates. The candidates who appeared in the examination were mature students and were to be appointed as Assistant Teachers in institution. They should have read the instructions that was issued time and again and should have correctly filled the entries relating to Roll Number, Registration Number, Question Booklet Series and Language attempted. The entries were, however, inaccurately filled as a result of which the scanner has not been able to process the result."
20. Further, in Banwarilal (supra), a Division Bench of this court had taken occasion to consider the said aspect, wherein the following observation has been made:
"9. The facts are not in dispute, wherein the petitioner, admittedly, had filled up the O.M.R. answer sheet by pencil whereas the instructions read as under:
"Use Blue/Black Ball Point Pen only. Pencil, Fountain Pen & Gel Pens are not allowed.
Failure in adhering to the above instructions will render your OMR answer sheet as invalid and will not be evaluated."
10. From the above instructions, it is more than clear that the candidate was forewarned about taking care while filling up the O.M.R. answer sheets and use of blue/black ball point pen only. The fact that the O.M.R. sheet has been checked, and the provision provides for not evaluating such answer sheet, by itself, cannot validate the use of pencil by the petitioner. The mistake committed by the respondents in evaluating the O.M.R. answer sheet, despite use of pencil, by itself, will not validate the use of pencil by the petitioner.
11. The sanctity of the instructions issued for the conduct of examination and consequence of their violation has been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu & Ors Vs. G. Hemalathaa & Anr. : 2020 (19) SCC 430, wherein it was, inter alia, laid down as under:
"7.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 is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission.
8. 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 in Taherakhatoon (D) By LRs vs. Salambin Mohammad and Chandra Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another 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.
9. 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, especially when such direction is in the teeth of the Instructions which are binding on the candidates taking the examinations.
10. 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, Venkataramiah, J., held that:
"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."
11. Roberts, CJ. in Caperton v. A.T. Massey held that:
"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."
12. 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.
13. In view of the aforementioned, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed."
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that the instructions issued are mandatory and have to be strictly complied with, as strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the instructions is of paramount importance. The relief granted by the High Court contrary to the instructions was not affirmed indicating that the directions were in the teeth of the instructions, which were binding on the candidates taking the examination. Reference was also made to the well known adage that 'hard cases make bad law' and that any order in favour of the candidate, who has violated the mandatory instructions would be laying down bad law. The Court further refused to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
13. The above emphasis laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for strict adherence to the instructions clearly applies to the present case as well. "
21. The law propounded in the above noted judgements, came to be followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Nisha Prajapati (supra) and Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava (supra). The proposition of law as culled down in the above noted judgements leads to an irresistible conclusion that instructions issued are mandatory and they have to be complied with strict adherence and deviation whereof is not permissible. Might be the writ petitioner would have suffered on account of bonafide inadvertent human error but this Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue directions, which are contrary to the instructions and the policy of the respondents as en-capsuled in instructions. Nonetheless, the said condition so incorporated in the instructions forbidding rectification has not been put to challenge.
22. As regards the decision in the case of Manoj Kumar (supra) is concerned, the same may not apply in the present facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the instructions are self-speaking and clear in the present case and they forbid any rectification. Thus, respectfully, following the judgements of the Division Bench of this Court in Vinay Kumar (supra) and Banwarilal (supra), this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
23. Resultantly, this Court finds its inability to the request of the writ petitioner while granting relief as sought in toto.
24. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.) November 21, 2025 Anurag/-