Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. In the case of Hanuman Dutt Shukla & others Vs. State of U.P. & others (2018) 16 SCC 447 (paragraphs 7 & 8), the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted / observed as under:-

"7. It is submitted by Mr. P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel and other learned Senior Counsel / counsel appearing for the parties that as per the Recruitment Rules framed by the State Government to appoint the eligible candidates to the posts, referred to supra, there is not prohibition to disentitle a candidate from evaluating the answer sheets, who used whitener or blade in the relevant blocks in the OMR sheet (answer sheet). The said advisory note given by the Selection Board cannot be treated as a rule to declare such candidates who have used whitener or blade in the relevant blocks in the OMR / answer sheet as ineligible for evaluating their answer sheets. The statement is in conformity with the Recruitment Rules and it would further support the stand taken by the learned Advocate General, representing the respondent State of U.P. In making submission on the basis of written suggestions.

15. Rule 12(3) of the Rules, 1998 mandates the Board to evaluate answer sheets through examiner to be appointed by the Board or through computer. Neither any material has been placed before me by learned counsels for the parties nor it has been argued by them that the instructions mentioned on the OMR Answer sheets are statutory or have statutory force. Even if it is assumed that the instructions as printed on the OMR Answer sheets have been lawfully framed by the Board and have statutory force yet in view of Rule 12(3) of the Rules, 1998, the Board cannot refuse to evaluate answer sheet of a candidate if there is no defect in Part-I of the OMR Answer sheet which relates to identity of candidate and subject opted etc. and the answer paper does not suffer from any major defect.

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 the Answer sheet as aforesaid, then the Board cannot refuse to evaluate the entire questions answered by the petitioners.

Question-(b)

19. The instructions given in the OMR Answer sheets cannot be made basis to refuse to evaluate Answer sheets of the petitioners merely on the ground that they marked circles of one or two questions of a subject other than the two subjects opted by them in the first part of the OMR Answer sheet. The mistake committed by the petitioners is a minor human error. They are merely claiming for evaluation of answers to the questions of the two subjects opted by them in the part-I of the OMR Answer sheet. The answers marked by them in one or two circles of another section / subject (other than the opted two subjects), can neither be evaluated nor the petitioners are claiming its evaluation which are merely liable to be ignored