Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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