Any error in filling up the OMR Sheet, even if inadvertent, cannot be condoned, and the candidature is liable to be rejected as per the clear instructions issued. Re-evaluation of OMR Sheets after the result has been declared and candidates have been recommended for appointment may compromise the sanctity of the examination itself.

ORDER :

RAJESH BINDAL, CJ.

1. This order will dispose of Special Appeal Defective No. 446 of 2020, Special Appeal Defective Nos. 55, 695 and 818 of 2021, Special Appeal No. 481 of 2021.

2. The legal issues raised in the aforesaid appeals are common.

FACT Special Appeal Defective No. 446 of 2020

3. The present intra-court appeal has been filed by the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) against the order dated February 14, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 20396 of 2019, titled as Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, whereby the writ petition filed by the private respondents was disposed of with a direction to the appellant to evaluate the OMR Sheets of the respondents despite the fact that there was error in filling thereof. It was with reference to answering the questions of three subjects whereas the option was to be exercised only for two subjects.

Special Appeal Defective No. 55 of 2021

4. The present intra-court appeal has been filed against the order dated December 15, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner was dismissed. In the case in hand, the claim of the appellant for permitting him to rectify the error in the OMR Sheet was declined by the learned Single Judge while referring to earlier Division Bench judgments of this Court dated February 5, 2014 in Special Appeal Defective No. 123 of 2014, titled as Arti Verma Vs. State of U.P. and dated April 25, 2018 in Special Appeal No. 90 of 2018, titled as Jai Karan Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.

Special Appeal No. 481 of 2021

5. The present intra-court appeal has been filed against the order dated December 2, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners-appellants was dismissed. The prayer before the learned Single Judge was for quashing of the result/select list dated October 27, 2021. The appellants were applicants for the post of Assistant Teacher. Their candidature was rejected for the reason that they had wrongly filled their OMR Sheets.

Special Appeal Defective No. 695 of 2021

6. The present intra-court appeal has been filed by the Board against the order dated February 18, 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.2 (petitioner No.9 in the writ petition) was allowed, relying upon the earlier order dated February 14, 2020 passed in Writ-A No. 20396 of 2019, titled as Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and another with a direction to the appellant Board to evaluate the OMR Sheets of respondent No.2 and other petitioners therein.

Special Appeal Defective No. 818 of 2021

7. The present intra-court appeal has been filed by the Board against the order dated February 18, 2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the private respondents was allowed, relying upon the earlier order dated February 14, 2020 passed in Writ-A No. 20396 of 2019, titled as Manoj Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, with a direction to the appellant Board to evaluate OMR Sheets of the private respondents.

ISSUE

8. The issues involved in the aforesaid Special Appeals are that, while appearing in the competitive examination and filling up the OMR Sheets in the subject of Social Science, out of four parts/subjects, namely Geography, History, Economics and Civics where specific instructions were given to the candidates to choose two subjects, whether they could attempt answers in three subjects and whether the same can be termed as a minor error and ignored.

SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES

9. Learned counsel for the candidates submitted that the candidates had opted for two of the aforesaid subjects. However, questions in three subject were answered by blackening the specified spot in the OMR Sheets. The claim was sought to be made that it was by error. The questions in the two subjects, which had been opted by a candidate, should be evaluated, whereas the third one c