Court dismisses plea for manual evaluation of OMR sheets despite minor bubbling errors, reinforcing mandatory adherence to examination instructions.
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Siddharth Nandan, has dismissed the writ petition filed by Garima Diwaker against the State of Uttar Pradesh, challenging the non-evaluation of her OMR sheet due to incorrect bubbling. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of instructions concerning the filling of OMR sheets in recruitment examinations, underscoring the importance of strict compliance to ensure fairness and transparency in the selection process.
The petitioner, Garima Diwaker, contended that although she entered the question booklet number correctly on her OMR sheet, an inadvertent marking of an additional bubble led to the non-evaluation of her answer sheet. Her plea sought the court's direction for manual evaluation of her OMR sheet, arguing the error was minor and should not result in disqualification.
However, the court upheld the examining body's decision, stating that the instructions for filling OMR sheets are binding and non-negotiable. The judgment highlighted that any deviation, even if minor, cannot be overlooked as it could compromise the identity verification and result processing.
Justice Siddharth Nandan, referring to precedents set by the Supreme Court, including the cases of U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Rahul Singh and Vinay Kumar vs. State of U.P., reiterated that courts should exercise restraint in academic matters and refrain from granting relief based on sympathetic grounds. The judgment noted that allowing manual evaluation or making exceptions would disrupt the timely completion of the recruitment process and affect its integrity.
The court acknowledged the large scale of similar rejections, with approximately 14,000 candidates facing the same issue. It emphasized that the responsibility lies with the candidates to meticulously adhere to the instructions provided, as errors in critical fields like roll number or booklet number cannot be rectified post-examination without affecting the examination's credibility.
The judgment also reflected on past decisions, such as the one in Jai Karan Singh vs. State of U.P., which discouraged judicial intervention in examination evaluation processes unless there was a blatant error in the answer key that required no inferential reasoning.
Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the principle that the sanctity of examination procedures must be maintained through strict adherence to established guidelines. The decision serves as a cautionary reminder to candidates about the critical importance of following examination instructions accurately.
Bottom Line :
Recruitment Examination - OMR sheet - Incorrect or defective bubbling in mandatory particulars such as question booklet number, even if numerical entry is otherwise correct, can justify non-evaluation of OMR sheet - Examination instructions are mandatory and courts should not grant relief on sympathetic grounds or direct manual evaluation where such indulgence may affect fairness, transparency and timely completion of selection process.
Statutory provision(s): None specified in the judgment.
Garima Diwaker v. State of U.P., (All) : Law Finder Doc id # 2985755
