Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. There are four sections in part-II of the OMR Answer sheet. Each section contained 63 questions on each of the four subjects in four separate blocks on the same page. The petitioners were required to answer questions in Part-II of those two subjects opted by them in Part-I and they answered it, but inadvertently they darkened one or two answer circle of questions of another subject. Such bonafide and unintentional mistake, in the absence of any statutory prohibition; cannot disentitle the petitioners from evaluation of their answers to questions in Part-II of the two subjects opted by them in part-I of the OMR Answer sheet. Rule 12(3) of the Rules, 1998 mandates Board to evaluate answer sheets of the written examination. It does not prohibit evaluation of answer sheets. Therefore, if by inadvertence a candidate has committed an unintentional/bonafide minor mistake in Part-II of 5 of 34 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008003 CWP-30581-2024 (O&M) -6- the Answer sheet as aforesaid, then the Board cannot refuse to evaluate the entire questions answered by the petitioners. Human Error:-

17. The concept of human error or inadvertent error has been explained in brief by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Price Water, Coopers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 11 SCC 316 (paragraph 15), as under:-

"The contents of the Tax Audit Report suggest that there is no question of the assessee concealing its income. There is also no question of the assessee furnishing any inaccurate particulars. It appears to us that all that has happened in the present case is that through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. This can only be described as a human error which we are all prone to make. The calibre and expertise of the assessee has little or nothing to do with the inadvertent error. That the assessee should have been careful cannot be doubted, but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income."

(emphasis supplied)

18. The petitioners have opted two subjects in Part-I and marked answers to questions of those subjects in the respective sections in Part-II. Inadvertently and unintentionally, they also marked one or two circles in another section/ subject in Part-II. This can only be described as human error. The petitioners should have been careful, but a little inadvertence like the present one cannot deprive them from evaluation of their answers to questions of the subject opted, particularly when there is no statutory prohibition under Rule 12 of the Rules, 1998.