Failure to properly fill the OMR question-booklet number justifies non-evaluation of answers.

The petitioner participated in the Bihar Police Sub-Ordinate Service Commission’s recruitment process under Advertisement No. 01/2019 for the posts of Police Sub-Inspector, Sergeant and Assistant Superintendent Jail (Ex-serviceman), including vacancies in the EBC (Women) category. She cleared the Preliminary Examination and appeared in the Mains Examination. Her roll number did not appear in the Mains result published on 16 January 2021, and her name was also absent from the final result published on 17 June 2021.

Through RTI proceedings, she sought her Mains OMR sheet and marks, but the Commission initially stated that the relevant confidential examination material could not be supplied because its auction process had commenced. During the writ proceedings, the Commission produced the petitioner’s OMR sheet.

The petitioner contended that although the question booklet number had not been properly filled in, the instructions did not expressly state that such an omission would result in cancellation of the answer sheet or non-calculation of marks. The Commission maintained that the question booklet number had not been correctly marked in Column 2, contrary to the specific instructions printed on the OMR sheet, making evaluation of the answers impossible.

1. Whether the Commission was justified in declining to evaluate the petitioner’s Mains Examination OMR sheet because the question booklet number was not properly darkened in accordance with the printed examination instructions.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for disclosure of her marks, publication of her result, and appointment as a Sub-Inspector under the EBC (Women) category.

The Court applied the principle that candidates in an objective examination must comply strictly with the instructions printed on the OMR answer sheet, particularly where accurate identification and evaluation of the answer sheet depend upon correctly marking the roll number and question booklet number.

Clause 7 of the OMR instructions required candidates to “darken the circles corresponding to your Roll No. and Question Booklet No. against Box No. 1 and 2 very carefully”.

The Court treated the Commission’s decision regarding non-evaluation of an improperly completed OMR sheet as an examination-administration decision warranting judicial restraint where the prescribed instructions had not been followed.

The Court examined the petitioner’s OMR sheet and found that, although the roll-number column had been filled, Column 2 relating to the question booklet number had not been completed properly.

The Court acknowledged that the instructions did not expressly state that failure to correctly fill the column would automatically result in cancellation of the answer sheet or non-calculation of marks.

Nevertheless, it held that the instruction to darken the relevant circles “very carefully” was clear and had not been complied with.

Since the question booklet number was necessary for matching and evaluating the answers, the Commission was justified in treating the answer sheet as defective and not calculating the petitioner’s marks.

Consequently, the Court found no legal or factual basis to interfere with the Commission’s decision.

The petitioner was therefore not entitled to publication of her marks, inclusion in the successful candidates’ list, or appointment as a Police Sub-Inspector.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no direction for appointment or other relief.