Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
Out of those 37 candidates 34 candidates have filed the present OA. With respect to each of the candidates SCN was issued, referring to specific facts and violation of specific instructions given on the reverse of the OMR sheet particularly with respect to bubbling of the OMR sheet which the machine could not have evaluated automatically by scanning, and without the manual interference at the behest of the candidates with the connivance with the officials of the CMC limited. After considering the representation each of the applicants orders were passed giving details of the consideration of the representation and the malpractice in which they were involved vide order dated 11.01.2018. The malpractice alleged with respect to each of the candidates is enumerated in the OA itself at para 4.15 which is extracted below:-
sheet should not have
been evaluated. Thus
clear case of
malpractice.
6. Shiv Kumar (Applicant The applicant did not bubble The applicant did not
no.6) question booklet no. provide information on
serial no. 6 of OMR
sheet. Thus the OMR
sheet was evaluated
manually. Thus there is
a clear indulgence in
malpractice.
7. Santosh Kumari The applicant has not written The applicant had
(Applicant No.7) question booklet series and wrongly filled/left a
wrongly marked roll no in OMR bubble blank in the
sheet. space provided for roll
no. Hence the answer
sheet is invalid and the
same should not have
been evaluated. Thus a
clear case of
malpractice.
8. Sajan (Applicant No.8) The applicant used fluid at The fluid was used by
option B while marking the the applicant and he
answer of question no. 78 in has been awarded one
part D of OMR in part D of OMR mark for the changed
sheet and he further marked answer. Thus awarding
answer C with pen and got one mark for the
awarded one mark. As per answer where the fluid
instructions no change/cutting was used implies that
/over writing was permitted the OMR sheet was
and correcting fluids should not evaluated manually.
be used. Thus a clear case of
malpractice.
9. Sunil Kumar (Applicant The applicant did not bubble The applicant did not
no. 9) the question booklet no. in the bubble question booklet
OMR answer-sheet under serial no. in OMR sheet. Thus
no. 6. a clear case of
malpractice.
10. Pankaj Rohilla The applicant filled up the The applicant was
(Applicant No. 10) wrong registration no. and also allotted registration
marked wrong bubble in no.DOP019530682
registration no. The applicant Whereas he has written
did not give his own email ID. his registration no. as
DOPO15530682 and
also marked bubble
accordingly. The OMR
sheet was not
evaluated by electronic
means and the same
has not only been
evaluated but the
applicant has also been
declared successful,
which establishes the
level of malpractice by
the examination
conducting agency and
the candidate.
Thus awarding one
mark for the answer
where fluid was used
implies that the OMR
sheet was evaluated
manually. Thus, there is
clear malpractice.
12. Sumeer Kumar The applicant has not marked The applicant has not
(Applicant No. 12) the question booklet no. in the marked the question
OMR answer sheet. booklet no in the OMR
answer sheet, which is
in violation of
instruction no. 5 given
on the reverse of OMR
sheet. These violations
on the part of agency
reiterate that OMR
sheets were not
evaluated automatically
by the OMR scanning
machine and the same
is evaluated manually.
Thus the applicant had
indulged in malpractice.
13. Rakesh Kumar The applicant had marked/filled The applicant had filled
(Applicant No. 13) up his registration number up his registration
incorrect/incomplete on the number incorrect/
OMR answer sheet. incomplete in bubbles
in the OMR answer
sheet. As per the
instruction No. 2, his
answer sheet should
not have been
evaluated, whereas the
same was evaluated in
violation of the laid
down instructions which
implies that the instant
OMR sheet was
evaluated manually.
Thus there is clear
malpractice.
14. Deepika Madan The applicant has not written The applicant has
(Applicant No. 14) her complete Roll No. on OMR wrongly filled/left a
sheet. bubble blank in the
space provided for roll
no. tantamount to
violation of instructions
no. 2 mentioned at
back of OMR answer
sheet because answer
sheet was to be
processed by electronic
means i.e. computer,
OMR scanner which
means only bubbles
/circle/ovals. Hence the
answer sheet is invalid
and should not have
been evaluated. Thus
there is clear
malpractice.
15. Sunil (Applicant No.15) The applicant has not marked The applicant has not
registration number in OMR marked registration
sheet. number in OMR sheet.
The applicant has
wrongly filled/left a
bubble blank in the
space provided for
registration no. which
tantamount to violation
of instructions no.2
mentioned at back of
OMR answer sheet
because answer sheet
was to be processed by
electronic means i.e.
computer, OMR scanner
which means by
bubble/ circle /ovals.
Hence the answer sheet
is invalid and should
not have been
evaluated. Thus, there
is clear malpractice.
16. Sushil Kumar (Applicant The applicant has marked The applicant has filled
No. 16) wrong registration No. and has up wrong regn. No.
Thus there is a clear
indulgence in
malpractice.
20. Amit Rathee (Applicant The applicant did not The applicant did not
No. 20) encircle/bubble the question encircle / bubble the
booklet number in answer question booklet
sheet. number in answer
sheet. The OMR sheet
were not evaluated
automatically by the
OMR Scanning Machine.
Thus there is a clear
indulgence in
malpractice.
21. Parveen Kumar The applicant used fluid at The fluid was used by
(Applicant No.21) option A while marking answer the applicant and he
of question No. 41 in Part-B of was awarded one mark
OMR answer sheet. He further for the changed
marked answer C with pen and answer. Awarding one
got awarded one mark for it. mark for the answer
where fluid was used
implies conclusively
that the OMR sheet was
evaluated manually.
Thus there is clear
malpractice.
22. Anil Kumar (Applicant The applicant has marked/filled The applicant has
no.22 ) up wrong/incorrect registration marked/filled up wrong/
no in OMR answer sheet. incorrect registration
no. in bubbles in OMR
answer sheet, which is
read over by the
scanner machine while
marking the OMR
answer sheet by
electronic means i.e.
computer. His answer
sheet should not have
been evaluated and the
same was evaluated
manually. Thus a clear
case of malpractice.
23. Ravinder (Applicant The applicant used fluid at OMR The applicant used fluid
No.23) answer sheet and got awarded at OMR answer sheet.
marks for it from the The OMR sheet was
outsourcing agency. evaluated manually.
Thus, there is clear
malpractice in the
instant case.
24 Renu (Applicant No. The applicant has not The applicant has not
24) marked/filled in question marked / filled in
booklet number in bubbles on question booklet
OMR answer sheet and she got number in bubbles on
same marks as obtained by OMR answer sheet,
group of eight candidates which is read over by
including her who got same the scanner machine
question paper series. while marking the OMR
answer sheet by
electronic means i.e.
computer. As per
instruction No. 2 her
answer sheet should
not have been
evaluated whereas the
same was evaluated in
violation of the
instructions which
implies that the OMR
sheet was evaluated
manually. Thus a clear
case of malpractice.
25. Hardeep (Applicant No. The applicant used whitener/ The applicant has used
25) fluid for marking roll no. and whitener/fluid at oval
registration no in the OMR portion at serial no. 2
sheet. and 3 in roll no. and
registration columns
respectively. Thus it is
clear case of
malpractice.
26. Sudhir (Applicant No. The applicant used The applicant used
26) whitener/fluid for marking whitener/fluid/cutting in
registration no. in OMR sheet. figure and oval portion
at serial no. 3 in
registration column.
The applicant used
rubber to erase the
wrong digits and filled
up the correct figures of
registration no. Thus
there is clear case of
malpractice.
27. Sanjay (Applicant The applicant has not marked/ The applicant has not
No.27) filled complete question booklet filled in his question
no. on OMR answersheet. booklet no. completely
in bubbles in the OMR
answersheet which is
read over by the
scanner machine while
marking the OMR
answer sheet by
electronic means. As
per the instruction No.
2 his answer sheet
should not have been
evaluated, whereas the
same was evaluated in
violation of the
instructions which
implies that the OMR
sheet was evaluated
manually. Thus it is
clear case of
malpractice.
28. Ishwar (Applicant No. The applicant has marked/filled The applicant has
28) wrong roll no. on OMR answer marked/filled wrong/
sheet. incorrect roll no. in
bubbles in OMR answer
sheet which is read
over by the scanner
machine while marking
the OMR answer sheet
by electronic means i.e.
computer. As per the
instruction No. 2 his
answer sheet should
not have been
evaluated, whereas the
same was evaluated in
violation of the
instructions which
implies that OMR sheet
was evaluated
manually. Thus it is the
clear case of
malpractice.
29. Sandeep Kumar Applicant marked wrong The applicant has
(Applicant No. 29) registration no in the answer- marked wrong
sheet registration no in the
answer sheet, it is
mentioned in the
instruction no. 2 and 14
available on backside of
OMR sheet that if the
candidate has filled up
an incorrect roll
no/registration no
/question booklet
no/series of the
question booklet, his
answer sheet will
become invalid and will
be not be evaluated
and no change/
cutting/overwriting is
permitted and
correcting fluid should
not be used. The
applicant wrote wrong
registration no. The
OMR sheet was
evaluated manually.
Thus, it is clear case of
malpractice.
30. Yogesh (Applicant The applicant has not marked The applicant did not
No.30) question booklet no. in the mark question booklet
OMR answer sheet. no in the OMR
answersheet, which is
in violation of
instruction no. 5 given
on the reverse of OMR
sheet. The OMR sheet
of the applicant was
evaluated manually.
Thus the applicant not
indulged in
malpractices.
31. Tarun Kumar (Applicant The applicant used The applicant used
No.31) whitener/fluid in the OMR whitener in the OMR
sheet. sheet. Thus the
applicant has indulged
in malpractice.
32. Deepak Chhillar The applicant has marked his It is mentioned in
(Applicant No. 32) roll no incorrectly by filling two instruction no.2 that if
bubbles in the same column of candidate has filled up
the roll no in OMR sheet. incorrect roll no/
registration no./
question booklet no
/series of question
booklet then his
answersheet will not be
evaluated. The
applicant marked two
bubbles in the same
column of the roll no.
which implies that OMR
sheet was evaluated
manually which is the
violation of instruction
no. 5 of the instructions
available on the
backside of OMR sheet.
Thus, it is a clear case
of malpractice.
33. Sanjay Kumar The applicant used fluid in the It is mentioned in
(Applicant NO. 33) bubble meant for darkening the instruction No. 14 of
roll no in OMR sheet. instructions available on
back side of the OMR
sheet that no change
/cutting/overwriting is
permitted and
correcting fluid should
not be used. As per
instruction no.5 in
instructions at back
side of OMR sheet, the
answer sheet was to be
processed by electronic
means i.e. computer.
Awarding one mark for
the answer where fluid
was used implies that
OMR sheet was
evaluated manually,
thus it is a case of
malpractice.
34. Dimpal Verma The applicant used fluid in It is mentioned in
(Applicant No. 34) marking roll no. in bubbles in instruction no. 2 that if
OMR sheet at serial No. 2 and the applicant has filled
used fluid in OMR sheet but up the incorrect roll no/
score was awarded. registration no/series of
question booklet no/
question booklet no.,
his answer sheet will be
invalid and will not be
evaluated.As mentioned
in instruction No. 14 of
instructions available on
backside of carbonless
copy of OMR sheet that
no change /cutting/
overwriting is permitted
and correcting fluid
should not be used.
The applicant used fluid
and she has been
awarded one mark for
changed answer. As per
instruction no. 5 of the
instruction at backside
of OMR sheet, the
answer sheet was to be
processed by electronic
means i.e. computer.
Awarding one mark for
answer where fluid was
used that OMR sheet
was evaluated
manually. Thus it is a
case of malpractice.
4. The counsel for the applicants vehemently and strenuously