Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: human errors in Shabbu Malik vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 21 November, 2025Matching Fragments
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. 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.