Strict compliance with examination instructions is paramount, and failure to adhere results in disqualification, irrespective of claims of inadvertence.

2. The petitioner appeared in the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2016, advertised by the respondent-Staff Selection Commission on 13.02.2016. He qualified the Tier I and Tier II examination. Tier III examination was a descriptive question paper with subjects: (i) Essay, and (ii) Letter. The petitioner appeared for the said examination. In the instruction to the candidates, it was clearly mentioned as under:

“Candidates are strictly advised not to write any personal identity, e.g., name, roll no., mobile no., address, etc., in the Answer Sheet. Otherwise their Answer Sheets SHALL NOT be evaluated.”

3. As noted hereinabove, the paper consisted of only two questions. For the second question, the candidates were required to write a letter. The question read as under:

“Assuming that you are Suresh/Seema, write a letter to your younger brother Naresh, highlighting the distinct benefits and shortcomings of Computer Based Recruitment Tests for Multiple Choice Objective Questions.”

4. Admittedly, the petitioner wrote the letter and, at the end, instead of addressing it in the name of Suresh/Seema, gave his own name.

5. Though, the paper was evaluated, and his result declared, later he was awarded zero marks in terms of the above quoted directions, on the ground that he had written his name in the answer sheet.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this was an inadvertent bona fide mistake of the petitioner, as it is a general human tendency to write one’s own name at the end of a letter. He submits that for the said reason, the petitioner could not have been awarded zero marks. He further submits that in fact, the paper of the petitioner had been evaluated, his result declared, and only thereafter, the result was changed by alleging unfair means, only on the ground that the petitioner had written his name at the end of the letter.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents reiterates that the candidates were specifically warned not to write their name, roll no., etc., on the answer sheet, and in case of any such infraction, their answer sheet shall not be evaluated. He submits that the since the petitioner admittedly wrote his own name in the answer sheet, he was rightly awarded zero marks by not evaluating the said answer sheet. The learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on the Judgment of Supreme Court in Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission v. A.B. Natarajan and Ors. , (2014) 14 SCC 95 in support of his submission.

8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

9. In the present case, as is evident from the condition reproduced hereinabove, the candidates have been strictly warned not to write any personal identity, including name in the answer sheet. The purpose of the same appears to be to rule out any bias or unfair means being used at the time of evaluation. This has also been highlighted by the the Supreme Court in T.N. Public Service Commission (supra), observing as under:

“14. If the candidates start giving indications with regard to themselves by writing their name or some code word or some indication with an intention to convey the same to an examiner, so that he may have some undue favour, is a thing which is not approved. If such an attempt is permitted to be made, sanctity of the examination work would not be maintained. The entire object behind giving code number etc. would be frustrated if all these things are permitted or tolerated.

15. Normally, a straightforward candidate, who does not want to indulge in any malpractice, would never make any effort to reveal his identity or make any special marking in his answer book. The purpose behind doing something abnormal or some