Authenticated correction of minor clerical errors by invigilators precludes rejection of candidature for technical non-compliance.

The applicant, a candidate for the Combined Higher Secondary Level (CHSL) Exam-2015, challenged the rejection of his candidature.

The respondents awarded him "Zero Marks" on the ground that he incorrectly mentioned his roll number on the answer book, violating mandatory instructions which stated that books not bearing correct particulars would not be evaluated.

The applicant contended that while an initial error was made in the roll number grid, it was corrected and subsequently verified and signed by the invigilator at the center.

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s candidature and awarding of "Zero Marks" for a corrected roll number discrepancy was arbitrary and legally sustainable.

2. Whether the verification and signature of the invigilator on the corrected roll number regularized the initial error.

The court primarily assessed the mandatory nature of exam instructions which stipulate the awarding of "Zero Marks" for failure to correctly record roll numbers.

The judicial principle of proportionality and the rectification of bona fide errors, specifically applying the ratio from the Delhi High Court in Union of India Ors. v. Babita (W.P. (C) No. 14980/2025), which held that trivial or corrected clerical errors should not lead to the cancellation of candidature if selection criteria are otherwise met.

The Tribunal also noted its own previous ruling in Sesetti Mahidharnath v. Union of India (O.A. No. 3868/2017) regarding similar discrepancies.

The Tribunal perused the original Answer Booklet (No. BZ 2016) and observed that although the applicant initially entered an incorrect digit in the roll number circle, he recorded the correct roll number (2201250074) immediately thereafter.

The Tribunal found that the invigilator had noticed the correction and appended their signature along with the applicant, thereby authenticating and verifying the rectification at the relevant stage.

The Tribunal reasoned that since the error was bona fide and duly verified by the respondent's own official (the invigilator), the respondents' contention of "non-compliance" was factually incorrect and lacked merit.

Consequently, the strict application of the "Zero Marks" rule was deemed unjustified in this specific instance where the discrepancy had been rectified and authenticated.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to: (i) evaluate the applicant's Tier-II answer sheet; (ii) allow him to participate in the Skill/Typing Test if he meets the qualifying marks; and (iii) issue an offer of appointment if he falls within the zone of consideration, within a three-month period.

The Tribunal clarified that this order is based on peculiar facts and shall not be treated as a binding precedent.