An OMR sheet must be evaluated when examination records can verify a mistakenly entered booklet number.

The applicant appeared in the Tier-II examination for PGT (Art Education) pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2025. Her OMR sheet was not evaluated because she had entered booklet number 62400487 instead of the allotted number 62100487, a difference of one digit.

After the results were announced, she represented to CBSE on 31 August 2026, stating that her OMR sheet had not been evaluated; the representation remained unanswered.

Since interviews were scheduled to begin on 12 October 2026, she sought evaluation of her OMR sheet and consideration for interview if she met the applicable cut-off.

KVS opposed relief, relying on a Jharkhand High Court decision concerning the risks to examination secrecy and integrity from correcting OMR-related errors.

1. Whether CBSE should be directed to verify the booklet number allotted to the applicant and evaluate her OMR sheet using the corresponding question booklet and answer key, despite the incorrect number recorded on the sheet.

2. Whether, if the evaluation established that the applicant met the applicable cut-off and eligibility requirements, her candidature should be considered for interview before the scheduled commencement of interviews.

The Tribunal applied the principle that an examination authority may be directed to verify contemporaneous examination records and undertake a limited evaluation exercise where an identifiable clerical error in a booklet number has prevented an OMR sheet from being matched and evaluated, provided the candidate’s marked answers are not altered and the exercise follows the applicable examination procedure.

It considered, but distinguished on the facts, the Jharkhand High Court’s decision in W.P.(L) No. 2909/2024, which warned that permitting corrections could compromise OMR secrecy and examination integrity.

No statutory provision was identified as the basis of the decision.

The Tribunal found that the applicant acted promptly after the result announcement and had not been negligent in pursuing her grievance.

It distinguished the cited Jharkhand High Court decision because the applicant was not seeking to change any answer or alter the OMR sheet; she sought only verification of the correct booklet number and evaluation of the already-completed sheet against the corresponding booklet and answer key.

The Tribunal considered that verification against the attendance sheet and other contemporaneous records would protect the integrity of the process and would not prejudice other candidates. Because interviews had not yet begun, it considered the limited exercise feasible before the next stage.

If she met the applicable category cut-off and other eligibility requirements, her candidature was to be considered for interview under the applicable rules; CBSE was to complete the exercise, as far as practicable, before 12 October 2026 and inform her of the outcome.

The Tribunal clarified that the order conferred no right to appointment or selection and made no order as to costs.