Allahabad HC Comes To Aid Of AIBE-20 Candidate 'Failed' Over Bonafide OMR Mistake As BCI Admits He 'Passed'

A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary intervened in the writ plea filed by candidate Love Yadav after the BCI's counsel admitted that, upon a manual check, it had been found that the petitioner had secured passing marks.

Briefly put, Yadav moved the HC, challenging the 'Fail' result and seeking the production of his original OMR sheet along with the final answer key for physical verification and re-tallying.

The petitioner submitted that although he had marked 'D' in the fourth column of the OMR sheet meant for the Question Booklet Set Code, he, for "bonafide reasons", but inadvertently missed darkening the reciprocal oval below it.

Due to this defect, the machine evaluated his answers incorrectly and declared him unsuccessful.

However, it was further his case that the invigilator had been negligent, as the OMR sheet specifically instructs the Invigilator to ensure, before putting his signature, that the candidate has entered his/her correct Roll Number, Question Booklet Set Code & Language.

The Counsel for the Bar Council admitted that upon manual verification with reference to Question Booklet No. D, which was the correct booklet, it was found that the petitioner had actually passed the AIBE.

In view of this, noting that the petitioner has actually passed, the bench directed the Bar Council of India to reconsider its decision and have the petitioner's answer sheet manually verified.

The bench remarked that the verification must be done "…keeping in view that successful clearing of AIBE Examination has been made mandatory for obtaining Certificate of Practice (COP), which legally permits an individual to practice and appear before any Court of Law in India".

The bench further directed that if the petitioner is found to have passed the examination, he be declared successful and treated as a pass candidate.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition was disposed of.

However, before parting, the bench clarified that it did not examine the rules and regulations of the AIBE Examination and disposed of the matter in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, and as such, the same may not be treated as a precedent in any other case.

Counsel for Petitioner(s): Shakti Kumar Sharma, Deepali Yadav, Jatin Raheja, Shobhit Harsh

Counsel for Respondent(s): Shailesh Kumar Pathak