OMR Sheet Error: Allahabad High Court Refuses Manual Evaluation, Says Exam Instructions Must Be Strictly Followed

The Allahabad High Court has held that a candidate who fills the 'Question Book Number' column of an OMR sheet in breach of the instructions cannot seek indulgence in the form of manual evaluation of the sheet. It held that the instructions issued to candidates are mandatory and that OMR sheets cannot be permitted to be evaluated physically.

Justice Siddharth Nandan held,

“The Court is also conscious of the fact that if such indulgence is granted subsequently then it may also result in making the fairness and transparency of the examination process questionable; and therefore the OMR Sheets cannot be permitted to be evaluated physically either.”

Petitioner had entered the correct number, 204103343, in the 'Question Book Number' column of her OMR sheet. However, in the second column, she had also marked the fourth bubble along with the first bubble, which corresponds to '0'. Her OMR sheet was not evaluated because of this marking. It was contended that the sheet was left unevaluated merely on account of a slight marking in the fourth bubble, even though the numerical entry was correct.

The Commission submitted that such inadvertence was not confined to the petitioner and that 14,000 such rejections were on record. It relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. Public Service Commission and Another v. Rahul Singh and Another, which considered the extent of the power of the Court to interfere in matters of academic nature.

It also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Vinay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others, which considered the Supreme Court's decision in State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. G. Hemalathaa and Another. In that case, the Supreme Court had set aside a High Court order that granted relief on sympathetic consideration and on human grounds despite an infraction of the instructions, holding that the instructions are mandatory and binding on candidates and that strict adherence to them is of paramount importance.

The Court noted that it had dealt with a similar controversy in Jai Karan Singh and 52 Others v. State of U.P. and Others. There, candidates had given incorrect information in the OMR sheet regarding the Registration Number, Roll Number, Question Booklet Series or the Language attempted, and their results were not declared.

The Court had held that it was for the examining body to work out the method of evaluation. It held that once candidates were clearly instructed that incorrect information would lead to non-declaration of the result, the body should not be directed to manually check 72,876 OMR sheets. It was observed that this would take substantial time and delay the result, which the use of OMR sheets was meant to avoid, and that the error could not be called minor, since the Registration Number and Roll Number determine the identity of the candidate.

Justice Nandan observed,

“It is no longer res intigra that instructions are mandatory in nature and the candidates are expected to read the instructions carefully and the OMR Sheets has to be filled up, as the answers given cannot be evaluated with infraction of the instructions, by the OMR Software Application and candidates who are negligent in not reading the instructions properly and not filling the columns meant for corresponding question booklet set, could not have been granted indulgence to fill up the columns in the OMR Sheet, subsequently.”

The Court held that candidates who are negligent in not reading the instructions properly and do not fill in the columns meant for the corresponding question booklet set cannot be granted indulgence to fill in the columns subsequently. It observed that granting such indulgence could make the fairness and transparency of the examination process questionable.

Holding that no relief could be granted, the Court dismissed the writ petition.