Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. The petitioner then filed the O.A. No.1832/2023 on 13.06.2023, before the learned Tribunal.

20. As noted hereinabove, the learned Tribunal, by the Impugned Order, dismissed the same, observing that the instructions on the OMR Sheet, in the examination booklet, and in the advertisement, repeatedly warned the candidates to be careful while bubbling the OMR Sheet, and that the respondent no.1 could cancel the result in case of any discrepancy. The candidates were cautioned that if the Roll Number or the question booklet series number was wrongly filled or any entry left blank, the OMR Sheet would not be evaluated. Despite these instructions, the petitioner wrongly filled her Roll Number, which mistake, according to the learned Tribunal, could not be considered minor in nature.

25. It is further submitted that, as the Roll Number had also been correctly written in numerical form, and there were other parameters such as the test paper number and the barcode, which were sufficient to identify the candidate and also to correlate the candidate with the OMR sheet, the incorrect bubbling of the Roll Numbers in the OMR sheet was only a minor mistake, which should not have resulted in the cancellation of the candidature of such candidates.

36. In Darpan Sharma (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court was considering a case where the respondent had qualified the Tier-I Examination and appeared in Paper-I of the Tier-II examination. The candidates were required to fill-in the "Test Form Number" in both, the Attendance Sheet and the OMR Sheet, and were also required to darken the bubbles corresponding to the appropriate digits. The OMR Sheet had the Test Form Number printed on the upper left corner of the form. The respondent therein omitted to blacken /darken the appropriate bubbles for the Test Form Number in his OMR Sheet, as a result of which his Paper I was not evaluated. The respondent therein, however, did not commit such a mistake in Paper-II of the Tier-II examination, which was therefore evaluated. As Paper-I in the Tier-II was not evaluated, the respondent could not meet the cut-off marks and was not called for the interview. The Court, placing reliance on the Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in The Union of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & pensions North Block, New Delhi, rep. by its Secretary & 2 Others v. Guduru Raja Surya Praveen S/o G. Venkateswara Rao & Anr., 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 437, held that the above mistake of the respondent was a condonable lapse, and the authorities could not refuse to evaluate the respondent‟s answer sheet for that reason. The Court observed that the Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 30.07.2019, and since the error committed by the petitioner before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the respondent before this Court was the same, the respondent therein was entitled to a similar relief. The Court further observed that the Test Form Number was specifically noted on the OMR Sheet and, therefore, it was not as if the same was not available thereon. The Court also noted that, at the foot of the answer sheet, the Invigilators were also required to sign. As candidates undertaking such examinations are often in a state of heightened tension and may commit silly errors, a duty is cast on the Invigilator to verify that all the details in the answer sheet have been correctly filled in, in order to avoid silly errors being made by such candidates. We quote from the Judgment as under:

38. In W.P.(C) 1282/2025 also, though the OMR Sheet had warned the candidates that in case of wrong bubbling of inter alia their Roll Number, the OMR Sheet would not be evaluated and they would be awarded zero marks, the OMR Sheet of the petitioner was evaluated despite her having wrongly bubbled her Roll Number. She was also declared successful in the examination and was called upon to upload her e-dossier. The mistake committed by the respondents, therefore, did not result in her being awarded zero marks at that stage, nor did it result in her OMR Sheet not being evaluated. It was only later that she was declared rejected due to the above mistake.