1. These Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order, as the point involved in these cases is same.

2. It is commonly said that to err is human but the Public Service Commission wants the human beings to be perfect. The Commission can frame rules for obedience by the candidates but when unintentional errors not relating to the merit of the candidate creeps in, whether a strict application of the rule is proper or not is the point involved in these cases.

3. W.P.No.26845 of 2017 was filed by two candidates who appeared for the test for recruitment of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) and Post Graduate Teachers (PGT). It is their case that the second respondent issued Notification Nos.13 of 2017 and 14 of 2017 dated 14.04.2017 for recruitment of Post Graduate Teachers and Trained Graduate Teachers respectively in the Residential Educational Institution Societies. The petitioners applied pursuant to the said notifications as they were eligible for both the posts. Though they applied for both the posts, they were issued one Hall ticket each and the examination is also same. They further state that the notification was issued after about two decades and most of the job seekers are on the verge of maximum eligible age limit for the posts of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) and Post Graduate Teachers (PGT). They were assigned Hall Ticket Nos.1718200239 and 1718203226 respectively. A preliminary test was held on 31.05.2017. There are four question paper booklets having four series i.e., A, B, C and D and answer books contained four circles for filling up of the respective code of question paper series. The candidate is required to blacken (bubbling) OMR sheets to furnish the details such as Hall ticket number, test booklet series, paper code, venue code etc. The first petitioner states that when she appeared for the examination on 31.05.2017, the Invigilator gave her A series booklet by mistake, though it was meant for the candidate who was sitting before her. Since A series booklet was given to her, she darkened the circle A in the OMR sheet, but later on the Invigilator took back the A series booklet and gave B series booklet and advised her to erase the darkened circle by whitener and asked her to darken the B circle in the OMR sheet. Similar mistake occurred in the case of the second petitioner also. Thus a mistake occurred in darkening the circle in the OMR sheet. The results were published on 14.07.2017 and when the petitioners names did not figure in the list of successful candidates though they secured more marks than the cut off marks as per the key published by the second respondent, they enquired and came to know that their OMR answer sheets were not processed as they darkened wrong booklet codes. The mistake occurred in the above circumstances and by darkening a wrong circle they are not going to derive any benefit. When the main examination for TGT was going to take place on 27th and 28th August 2017 and PGT on 03rd and 04th September 2017, they filed the above Writ Petition on 09.08.2017 challenging the action of the second respondent in not evaluating their answer scripts of preliminary examination.

4. This Court while admitting the Writ Petition on 22.08.2017 directed the respondents to evaluate the OMR sheets of the petitioners and declare their results. It was also stated that if the petitioners were within the zone of consideration for writing the main examination, they should be permitted to write the main examination on 28.08.2017 and also on 04.09.2017.

5. The second respondent filed W.V.M.P. No. 4555 of 2017 seeking vacation of the said order stating that the first petitioner wrongly bubbled both the circles of A and B against the place provided for bubbling the question booklet series in the OMR sheet and there is no evidence of whitener against both the circles and it is invented for the purpose of Writ Petition. The other allegation that the candidate who was supposed to sit before her was absen