-
by sayum
13 October 2026 6:59 AM
"The Instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to be strictly complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions is of paramount importance." Punjab and Haryana High Court held that any deviation from mandatory examination instructions—such as scratching or smudging an OMR sheet—renders the entire answer sheet liable for cancellation, regardless of whether the error was inadvertent.
Dismissing a plea filed by a candidate whose OMR sheet was invalidated for "scratching" a single question, Justice Nidhi Gupta observed that "the Instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to be strictly complied with."
The petitioner, an EWS category candidate, appeared for a Group C recruitment examination conducted by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC). While attempting Question No. 60, the petitioner inadvertently scratched a circle to correct an option, which led to the total rejection of his OMR sheet by the commission. Challenging this, the petitioner argued that the act was a bona fide mistake, and given his higher score, the rejection was disproportionate and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution.
The primary question before the court was whether the respondents were justified in cancelling the entire OMR sheet due to a single instance of scratching, despite the petitioner’s plea of inadvertence. The court further examined whether it possessed the authority to relax mandatory examination instructions to prevent the disqualification of a candidate who otherwise qualified on merit.
The court meticulously examined Clause 21.3 of the advertisement, which explicitly prohibits the use of erasers, nails, or blades on the OMR sheet. The clause clearly stipulates that if a candidate smudges or scratches any part of the sheet in any manner, the entire candidature is liable for cancellation.
Strict Construction of Mandatory Rules
Justice Nidhi Gupta emphasized that the petitioner’s admission of "scratching" the OMR sheet placed him squarely within the ambit of the disqualification clause. The court held that the subjective intent of the candidate—whether the act was inadvertent or malicious—is irrelevant when the instruction is unambiguous. The rule is designed to ensure the integrity of the selection process and the technical requirements of computer-based OMR evaluation.
Hard Cases Do Not Make Good Law
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Tamil Nadu vs. G. Hemalathaa, reiterating the legal maxim that "hard cases make bad law." The court noted that relaxing mandatory instructions for individual candidates, regardless of their circumstances, would create distrust in the selection process and violate the principle of equality. Any interference by the court would effectively undermine the fair and impartial nature of public appointments.
"The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission."
Technical Integrity of Selection
The court further noted that OMR sheets are evaluated by machines, and any physical abrasion or tampering can lead to erroneous results. Referencing the Division Bench judgment in Anshu and others vs. State of Haryana, the court observed that candidates are expected to be conscious of the guidelines provided. When specific cautions are issued against scratching or using fluids, the candidate assumes the risk of disqualification by ignoring those directions.
Finding no merit in the petition, the court upheld the commission's decision to reject the OMR sheet. The court concluded that the mandate of the examination instructions must be strictly followed to maintain the sanctity of the selection process. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the precedent that judicial intervention in recruitment procedures is constrained by the strict terms of the advertisement.
Date of Decision: 26 August 2026
