The judgment established the principle that while candidates bear responsibility for accurate information, examination authorities also have a duty to ensure the integrity of the examination process and deal with grievances objectively.

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. The petitioner through the medium of present petition is seeking a direction to the respondents to re-evaluate her OMR Answer Sheet, Paper-II of MD/MS/PG Diploma and MDS Entrance Test 2015 after treating option "B" instead of "A" inadvertantly filled-in by the petitioner against Column "Question Booklet Series" in the said sheet. The facts-in-brief are that the petitioner after having done MBBS from Government Medical College, Jammu applied for MD/MS/PG Diploma course in pursuance of Advertisement Notification No. 01-BOPEE of 2015 dated 8-1-2015. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the examination held on 15th March, 2015. It is averred that during the second session, the petitioner was provided Question Booklet Series "B" with Question Booklet No. 520198. In the OMR Answer Sheet where the petitioner had to fill-in the answers, it is averred due to oversight and inadvertence, instead of mentioning "B" against the Column of Question Booklet Series, the petitioner filled "A" and proceeded to solve the questions on the OMR Answer Sheet.

2. The grievance of petitioner is that in the result declared on 2-4-2015 she has been awarded 93 marks in Paper-I, whereas only 34 marks have been awarded to her in Paper-II due to wrongly/inadvertently mentioning as "A" against the column of Question Booklet Series. It is averred in the petition that immediately after declaration of the result, the petitioner approached respondents 2 to 4 with a request to re-evaluate her OMR Answer Sheet of Paper-II after taking Question Booklet Series as "B" instead of "A." Her case was that as per the answer key published, she would have actually been awarded 88 marks in Paper-II, but due to inadvertently mentioning the wrong Question Booklet Series, she has been awarded only 34 marks in the said paper. The respondents, however, refused to entertain the request of petitioner. Hence the present writ petition.

3. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner was otherwise required to be awarded 88 marks in Paper-II if the petitioner would not have inadvertently mentioned "A" instead of "B" against the column of Question Booklet Series. He further contended that the Invigilators and Deputy Superintendent in the examination centre were equally responsible in not ensuring that the petitioner had not rightly filled-in in the relevant particular on the OMR Answer Sheet of Paper-II.

4. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents 2, 3 and 4. The plea taken in the objections is that the case of petitioner has been rejected vide Order No. 209-BOPEE of 2015, dated 9-6-2015 after the same was found bereft of any merit in view of the rules, notifications and instructions on the subject. It is contended that the whole process of evaluation of OMR Answer Sheets is mechanical, and no manual process is involved to ensure total impartiality, therefore, there is no provision or scope for re-evaluation. It is contended that it was the primary duty of petitioner to fill-in the correct particulars in the OMR Answer Sheet. While rejecting the claim of petitioner, the respondents have also relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in case, titled as. The Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Examination, CBSE v. Khubshoo Shrivastava, 2011 (5) Supreme 609, holding that in absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has any right to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his/her marks.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the writ record.

6. Indisputably, while appearing in the second session of examination for MD/MS/PG Diploma Course on 15-3-2015, instead of mentioning "B" against the column of Question Booklet Series in the OMR Answer Sheet, the petitioner inadvertently filled-in "A." It is also not in dispute that she has been awarded 93 marks in Paper-I, whereas only 34 marks has been awarded to her in Paper-II due to inadvertent