IMPORTANT POINT
Technical errors in examination forms should not negate candidates' rights to evaluation, especially when merit is established, ensuring equal opportunity in public employment.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The respondent participated in the Combined Graduate Level Examination [CGLE] 2015, conducted by the Staff Selection Commission [SSC] for recruitment to the various civil posts under the Central Government. The examination was to be conducted in two tiers, Tier-I and Tier-II. Candidates who qualified in Tier-I were shortlisted for participation in Tier-II. Tier-II consisted of 2 papers, Paper-I and Paper-II.

2. The respondent qualified Tier-I, and appeared in Paper-I in Tier-II on 25 October 2015. Each candidate was required to fill an attendance sheet and an OMR [Optical Mark Recognition] Sheet. The candidate was required to fill the Test Form Number - which was specific to each individual candidate - in the Attendance Sheet and the OMR Sheet. The candidate was required to darken the bubbles over the appropriate digits, so that the Test Form Number would be reflected. It requires to be mentioned, here, however, that the OMR Sheet, which is on record, has the Test Form Number printed on the upper left corner of the form. The Test Form Number of the respondent for Paper-I in Tier-II was 1144135.

3. The respondent entered his Test Form Number in his Attendance Sheet, but omitted to blacken/darken the appropriate bubbles relating to the Form Number in his OMR Sheet. As a result, the respondent’s answers in Paper-I were not evaluated. The respondent did not, however, commit the same mistake in Paper-II of his Tier-II examination which was, therefore, evaluated.

4. The respondent belongs to the unreserved category, for which the cut-off marks, for the entire CGLE, were such that of 430.75, out of a total of 600, 200 marks being assigned to each Paper. The respondent scored 129.25 marks in Tier-I and 171.25 marks in Paper-II in Tier-II. However, as his Paper-I in Tier-II was not evaluated, the respondent could not make the cut off of 430.75.

5. The written examination was followed by an interview. The respondent was not called for the interview, as he had not made the cut off of 430.75 in the written examination.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal [“the Tribunal” hereinafter] by way of OA 1022/2016. Before the Tribunal, one of the contentions advanced by the respondent was that, based on the answer key for Paper-I of the Tier-II examination, he would have scored 157 or more marks in the said Paper which, when added to the marks scored by him in Tier-I and in Paper-II in Tier-II, would have totalled to 457.5 marks or more, thereby enabling him to scale the cut-off of 430.75 for the unreserved category. While submitting that it was owing to the tremendous pressure faced by him, as also by other candidates while attempting such examinations, that he, inadvertently, failed to darken the bubbles relating to the Test Form Number in his OMR Sheet, he pointed out that the Test Form Number - in his case, 1144135 - was, even otherwise, printed on the OMR Sheet itself. As already noted, we have seen the OMR sheet and find this assertion to be correct.

7. As against this, the petitioner, as the respondent before the Tribunal, relied on General Instruction [“GI” hereinafter] 9(C) in the Notice inviting applications for the CGLE 2015, which read:

“Candidate should write and code his/her Name, Roll Number of the Examination etc. as mentioned in the Admission Certificate, Date of Birth and Test Form Number fully and correctly in the relevant places in OMR Answer Sheet. Answer Sheet not bearing candidate’s Roll Number, Test Form Number, Signature and Left Thumb Impression or improper/incomplete coding of these details will not be evaluated.”

It was submitted that the OMR sheet further stipulated as under:

“A machine will lead the coded information in the OMR Sheet. In case any of the coded information is incomplete or different from the information given in the application form, the answer sheet of the candidate will not be evaluated.”

The petitioner sought to contend, before the