Failure to follow mandatory instructions for filling OMR sheets in a competitive examination, resulting in an unreadable answer sheet, justifies the rejection of a candidate's candidature to maintain administrative efficiency and process integrity.

O R D E R

1. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner assails the correctness of the order dated 01.07.2025 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’], whereby the O.A. 2333/2017 filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.

3. The Petitioner, pursuant to the Recruitment Notice dated 12.09.2013 issued by the Respondent No.2, had applied for the post of DASS Grade-II (Post Code 40/13). Thereafter, in June 2017, he had appeared for the Tier-1 examination for the said post. During the examination, an Optical Mark Recognition sheet [hereinafter referred to as ‘OMR sheet’] was provided to the Petitioner, wherein he was required to correctly indicate his Roll Number both in writing it numerically as well as by filling and shading the corresponding bubbles provided therein.

4. However, in Row No.2 of the OMR sheet, the Petitioner incorrectly shaded two bubbles, i.e., 2 and 4, whereas he was required to shade only the bubble corresponding to 4. On account of the aforestated discrepancy, the OMR sheet of the Petitioner was not evaluated.

5. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed O.A. No.2333/2017 before the Tribunal and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal, while relying upon the judgment dated 06.12.2024 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. 1832/2023 captioned Kusum Gupta v. DSSSB and judgment dated 25.07.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4807/2022 captioned Union of India & Ors. v. Mahendra Singh.

6. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his application by the Tribunal, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition.

7. Heard learned counsel representing the parties and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.

8. Notably, by order dated 19.12.2025, the Predecessor Bench of this Court directed the Respondents to produce the OMR sheet of the Petitioner on the next date of hearing. In compliance with the said direction, the learned counsel representing the Respondents has produced the OMR sheet of the Petitioner, which has been perused by this Bench.

9. It is evident from the OMR sheet that the Petitioner had shaded two bubbles in Row No.2, whereas he was required to shade only one bubble. Consequently, the OMR sheet of the Petitioner was not evaluated.

10. The issue involved in the present case already stands covered against the Petitioner by the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 17595/2024 captioned Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr v. Niharika Puhan and connected matter. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are extracted below:

“49. Now proceeding to WP(C) 17595/2004, we would begin by referring to the judgment in Roshan Lal (supra), wherein this Court was considering a case where the Test Form Number was required to be bubbled/shaded. The Court found that the computer would read only such an OMR Sheet which contained the correct shading of such a number. The Court, therefore, upheld the rejection of a candidate who had failed to correctly shade the Test Form Number in the answer sheet, as a result of which the Answer Sheet could not be read.

50. In Sandeep Kr. Yadav (supra), in similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court held as under:

“15. A glance at the aforesaid instructions issued to the candidates for purposes of marking the OMR sheets shows that explicit directions were given to the candidates to fill and shade their names, roll numbers, date of birth, mode, religion, category, question booklet number & code and sex. All the candidates w