Candidates must adhere to examination instructions, and no direction can be issued in favor of a candidate who makes a fault due to carelessness.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to declare the petitioner as a successful candidate in the JTET (PT), 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said examination’), conducted by the Jharkhand Academic Council (in short JAC), as she has got 78 marks, which is higher than that of the last successful candidate.

2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the JAC published Advertisement No. 47/2016 dated 31.08.2016 for conducting the said examination and thereby inviting applications from the candidates who were interested and eligible for the same. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied and appeared in the said examination held on 20.11.2016. The respondent-JAC declared the result of the said examination, however, the name of the petitioner did not find place in the list of the successful candidates. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the respondent-JAC for showing her OMR sheet. Vide letter dated 17.06.2017, she was allowed to inspect her OMR sheet on 04.07.2017. On inspection of the OMR Sheet, it was found that due to inadvertence, the petitioner had not filled up the subject column, though she had solved the questions of Maths and Science subjects scoring 27 marks. The following marks were obtained by the petitioner in the said examination:

Sl. No.	Subject	Marks obtained
01	Hindi	8
02	English	5
03	Child Development& Pedagogy	15
04	Maths & Science	27
05	Nagpuri	26
	Total	81

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the total marks obtained by the petitioner is 81 whereas the last selected candidate of the petitioner’s category i.e. B.C category for the Ranchi District has got 78 marks. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioner could not be included in the list of the successful candidates due to non-addition of the marks of Maths and Science subjects in the total marks, though she scored 27 marks in the said subjects. It is also submitted that the mistake of non-shadowing the subject column is a human error, which can be rectified and the petitioner may be declared as a successful in the said examination after adding the marks of Maths and Science subjects.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-JAC, submits that the OMR sheets of the candidates were to be evaluated through the OMR scanning machine and as such in the admit cards itself, it was instructed that the incomplete/incorrect filling or shadowing of the bubbles on the OMR sheets will be the sole responsibility of the candidates. It is further submitted that the petitioner appeared in the said examination, but in her OMR sheet, she had not filled up or shadowed the Column No.10 i.e. Subject Column and due to the said reason, upon computerized checking of her OMR sheet, she got total 54 marks for the shadowed answers. It is also submitted that at every stage of the examination and also in the OMR sheet, it had been clarified to the candidates that the OMR sheet will be checked through computerised system and not manually and therefore the candidates have to shadow their choices properly. In case of improper shadowing or leaving the column blank, the same will not be read by the OMR scanning machine. Thus, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant documents available on record, it appears that the marks obtained by the petitioner in Maths and Science subjects could not be added in her total marks, as she had not filled up/shadowed Column No.10 i.e. the Subject Column in her OMR sheet. The