Hardship That Was Not Foreseen At The Time Of Entering The Contract Cannot Be A Ground To Deny Specific Performance:  Supreme Court Of India Transfers Made to Defeat the Ceiling Act Are Void Under Sections 8 and 10: Supreme Court Upholds Decisions Declaring Surplus Land Transfers Invalid Compromise Decree Affirming Pre-Existing Rights Requires No Registration or Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Criticizes Arbitrary Termination and Misuse of Temporary Contracts: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Long-Serving Temporary Employees Partition During Owner’s Lifetime Invalid Under Mohammedan Law: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Over Alleged Oral Gift and Partition Time Gap Between Alleged Act and Suicide Nullifies Link to Abetment: Supreme Court Quashes Abetment to Suicide Charges Hindu Succession Act Does Not Apply to Scheduled Tribes Unless Notified: Supreme Court Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act Protection Cannot Be Invoked Without Proof of Written Contract and Performance Obligations: Supreme Court Reinvestigation Post-Acquittal Violates Double Jeopardy Safeguards: Supreme Court Victim’s Majority and Consensual Relationship Prima Facie Established: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Madras High Court Validates Registered Will, Labels Subsequent Unregistered Will as Shrouded with Suspicion Confession Under Section 67 NDPS Act Must Be Voluntary, True, and Corroborated to Sustain Conviction: Delhi High Court Failure to Upload Names Cannot Debar Benefits – Calcutta High Court Orders Approval of Accompanists as SACT-II Compromise Invalid in POCSO Offenses: Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail in Child Rape Case Right to Reputation Cannot Be Compromised by Baseless Allegations: Digital Platforms Must Act Responsibly: Delhi High Court Parity Principle Justifies Bail When Similarly Placed Co-Accused Have Been Released: P&H Court Presumption of Innocence is Paramount: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Acid Attack Case No Direct Employer-Employee Relationship Established: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Workman’s Claim for Reinstatement Under ID Act Promissory Note Alone Can't Prove Debt: Kerala High Court Highlights Need for Credible Evidence Confessions By Co-Accused Cannot Form Sole Basis For Indictment Without Independent Evidence: Bombay High Court Quashes Prosecution in 1993 Communal Riot Case Sanctioning Authority Must Independently Apply Its Mind; A Mechanical Approval Cannot Justify Prosecution: Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Supreme Court Slams Punjab Government For Failing To Shift Hunger-Striking Farmer Leader To Hospital

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
 

Similar News