MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Strict Rules Must Be Followed, No Exceptions – Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Over OMR Sheet Errors

31 December 2024 4:28 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Subheadline: The court reaffirms the necessity of strict compliance with examination guidelines, rejecting pleas for leniency in the case of improperly filled OMR sheets.

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition filed by two candidates seeking leniency after their examination OMR sheets were rejected due to improper filling. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Ashutosh Kumar, emphasized the importance of adhering strictly to examination instructions to maintain the integrity of the selection process.

The petitioners, Payal Soni and Priyanka, participated in a competitive examination but faced exclusion from the selection process due to errors in filling their OMR sheets. Payal Soni failed to fill the marked space for the question booklet series, while Priyanka did not darken the bubble relating to the question booklet series. They argued that such defaults should not lead to outright exclusion and sought an opportunity to correct their mistakes.

The court underscored the mandatory nature of the instructions provided for filling OMR sheets. “The instructions issued by the examination authorities are mandatory and must be strictly complied with to ensure the sanctity and fairness of the selection process,” the bench noted. It was highlighted that the OMR sheets are evaluated through an automated system that requires precise adherence to instructions for accurate processing.

Addressing the technical implications, the court stated, “If the OMR sheet is not properly filled as per instructions, it cannot be captured and evaluated by the mechanized system.” The court elaborated that such errors disrupt the automated evaluation process, necessitating exclusion from the selection process to preserve the examination’s integrity.

The judgment referenced earlier cases, including the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Tamil Nadu and Others vs. G. Hemalathaa, which emphasized the binding nature of examination instructions. The court quoted, “Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the instructions is of paramount importance,” highlighting that leniency in such cases could undermine the entire selection process.

Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava remarked, “A proposition that after the OMR sheets are submitted, they should be allowed to be corrected by the candidates would completely derail the selection process and is susceptible to misuse.”

The Rajasthan High Court’s dismissal of the petition reinforces the judiciary’s stance on maintaining strict compliance with examination guidelines. By rejecting the plea for leniency, the judgment sends a clear message about the importance of following instructions meticulously to ensure a fair and transparent selection process. This decision is expected to have significant implications for future examination protocols, emphasizing the critical role of procedural accuracy.

Date of Decision: 23/07/2024
 

Latest Legal News