Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State made submissions that a bare look at the OMR Sheet (Annex.-7) would reveal that the petitioner besides filling-up the bubble for answer No.3, has also partially filled-up bubble indicating answer No.2, for which, there was specific instruction indicated in the OMR Sheet itself requiring the candidate, not to mark any other thing in bubble other than the answer bubble, which the candidate wanted to mark and the same was also illustrated by giving examples in this regard.

It is submitted that admittedly in front of Question No.142, the petitioner not only filled-up bubble No.3, the bubble No.2 was partially filled-up by the petitioner.

Submissions have been made that the OMR Sheet are checked by computers and once more than one bubble is marked, the machine was bound to reject the said answer and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to award of marks for the Question No.142 and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

(3 of 3) [CW-11096/2018] I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

A bare look at the OMR Answer Sheet (Annex.-7) reveals that in front of Question No.142, the answer bubble No.3 is fully filled-up by the petitioner and the answer bubble No.2 has been partially filled-up by the petitioner.

Instruction No.2 in the OMR Sheet (Annex.-7), reads as under:-

Apparently, the petitioner, had filled-up answer bubble No.3 fully and answer bubble No.2 partially and as such, the OMR Answer Sheet Reading Machine, rejected the answer of the petitioner and did not award any marks for Question No.142.

Non-award of marks based on the nature of filling-up the bubbles by the petitioner, cannot be faulted.