-
by Admin
16 February 2026 10:43 AM
“Candidate's Mistake Fatal Only If OMR Sheet Was Never Evaluated”: Delhi High Court Resolves Divergent CAT Rulings on DSSSB Exams. In a significant ruling that addresses a recurring challenge in competitive recruitment exams, the Delhi High Court delivered a common judgment in two writ petitions concerning OMR sheet disqualification due to incorrect bubbling of roll numbers. The Court, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain, clarified the legal consequences of such errors by drawing a crucial distinction between cases where the OMR sheets were evaluated despite the error and where evaluation was denied altogether.
Delhi High Court allowed the plea of Ms. Kusum Gupta, directing Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) to issue her an appointment letter for the post of TGT Special Education Teacher, having already evaluated her OMR sheet and declared her qualified. However, in W.P.(C) 17595/2024, the Court reversed the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order favouring Ms. Niharika Puhan, whose OMR sheet was never evaluated due to her mistake, and dismissed her petition.
“Where OMR Has Been Evaluated, Rejection Later Is Arbitrary and Impermissible”
The Court made it explicitly clear that the point of evaluation of the OMR sheet forms the jurisdictional threshold for determining relief.
“Since the result of the petitioner was declared despite her having made a mistake in bubbling her Roll Number, we are of the view that she should not have been denied the fruits of her selection.” — Para 42
Relying heavily on the Delhi High Court’s own ruling in Staff Selection Commission v. Kritika Raj and Darpan Sharma**, the Court concluded that once the OMR sheet is evaluated and the candidate shortlisted, a later-stage disqualification based on a known error (such as incorrect bubbling) amounts to an arbitrary withdrawal of benefit.
“In W.P.(C) 1282/2025 also… the OMR Sheet of the petitioner was evaluated despite her having wrongly bubbled her Roll Number. She was also declared successful… It was only later that she was declared rejected… The mistake committed by the respondents, therefore, did not result in her being awarded zero marks at that stage.” — Para 38
The Court, accordingly, directed DSSSB to issue Kusum Gupta her appointment within eight weeks, granting her notional seniority and other service benefits, but denying arrears of pay for the past period.
“Non-Compliance with Bubbling Instructions Is Fatal Where OMR Not Evaluated”
In contrast, the Court upheld strict adherence to exam instructions in the case of Ms. Niharika Puhan whose OMR sheet was never evaluated due to incorrect bubbling of roll number. Emphasizing the clear directions on OMR sheets, exam booklets, and advertisements, the Court stated:
“Despite such warnings, [the candidate] committed a mistake in shading/bubbling their Roll Number in the OMR Sheet. The question before this Court is to determine the effect thereof.” — Para 35
Invoking the Supreme Court’s guidance in Union of India v. Mahendra Singh and Ran Vijay v. State of U.P. and Delhi High Court’s earlier ruling in Sandeep Kumar Yadav v. UOI, the Court maintained:
“Granting such relief would result in reopening the result of the examination after a considerable delay… Sympathy or compassion cannot play any role in deciding whether or not to direct re-evaluation of the Answer Sheet.” — Paras 53–54
The Court ultimately held that when evaluation never occurred, candidates cannot be allowed to invoke post-facto identification arguments based on written roll numbers or invigilator signatures.
“Invigilator Signatures Cannot Override Candidate Responsibility”
Both candidates argued that their OMR sheets were signed by invigilators, who failed to notice the bubbling mistake, and that the written roll numbers were correct. However, the Court maintained that the responsibility rests squarely on the candidate to ensure proper bubbling.
“The Invigilators were also required to verify that all details in the answer sheet had been correctly filled in… [But] this alone does not excuse the candidate’s responsibility.” — Para 39
“Relief Limited to Present Litigants; No Reopening of Entire Selection”
Addressing the concern raised by DSSSB that multiple similarly placed candidates (nearly 98 in one case) had also been rejected for the same reason, the Court drew a firm procedural line:
“The relief granted… shall be confined only to the petitioner in W.P.(C) 1282/2025… However, in case any other O.A. or Writ Petition is pending… similar relief shall also be extended to such candidates.” — Para 48
This ensures that judicial relief is individual-specific, while still allowing scope for similarly aggrieved litigants to be heard — but not by default.
“Administrative Instructions on Bubbling Are Mandatory — But Their Consequence Depends on Evaluation Stage”
The Court's analysis rests on one fundamental legal distinction: evaluation of the OMR sheet despite the bubbling mistake. If evaluated, the State cannot reverse its own action after the result. If not evaluated, the mistake remains fatal as per statutory and exam-specific instructions.
Thus, in effect, the Court has carved out two categories:
The Delhi High Court’s decision in DSSSB v. Niharika Puhan and Kusum Gupta v. DSSSB provides clear jurisprudential guidance on the legal consequences of OMR bubbling errors, balancing the rigour of examination instructions with principles of administrative fairness.
While Ms. Kusum Gupta’s writ was allowed, the writ filed by DSSSB against CAT’s decision in favour of Ms. Niharika Puhan was also allowed, setting aside the Tribunal’s order.
The ruling reflects a measured approach — recognizing bureaucratic finality in un-evaluated cases, while safeguarding against arbitrary reversal in evaluated ones.
Date of Decision: 21 August 2025
