Hyper-technical rejection for minor, non-substantive errors in OMR/answer-sheet details is legally unsustainable.

The applicant competed in the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE) 2016 for the post of Assistant Audit Officer. While he scored high marks (619 overall), he was awarded zero marks in the Tier-III examination and placed on the rejected list

The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) justified this by stating the applicant failed to mention his full roll number in the answer booklet, violating strict exam instructions

The applicant contended that he inadvertently missed the last two digits, which the invigilator subsequently corrected on the sheet, and that the sheet had initially been evaluated (awarded 65/100) before the marks were Zeroed out

The applicant sought a quashing of the rejection and a direction for appointment

1. Whether a minor technical lapse in entering a roll number, which does not impact the integrity of the examination or the identity of the candidate, justifies the awarding of zero marks and rejection of candidature.

2. Whether the instructions regarding the filling of OMR/Answer sheets are mandatory or directory when the candidate’s identity is otherwise established through signatures and thumb impressions.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The Tribunal relied on the principle that minor, non-essential lapses should not defeat the objective of identifying meritorious candidates, as held in Sumit Kumar v. Union of India (OA 215/2017) and Union of India v. Guduru Raja Surya Praveen

It further followed the Delhi High Court's view in Neeraj Kumar that instructions for filling answer sheets are directory, not mandatory, in the absence of malpractice

The Supreme Court's observation in Sandeep Kumar that the law should condone minor indiscretions of young people seeking employment

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's identity was never in doubt; his signatures and left-thumb impressions were present, and his roll number had actually been corrected by the invigilator

The Tribunal reasoned that the SSC took a "hyper-technical" stand, as there were no allegations of impersonation or malpractice

Since the answer sheet had been initially evaluated and high marks were awarded, the subsequent decision to award "zero" was deemed an "afterthought"

The Tribunal emphasized that the primary goal of the SSC is to select the most meritorious candidates, and such technicalities should not serve as an impediment to fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16

The respondents were directed to restore the applicant's Tier-III marks and offer him the post of Assistant Audit Officer (Post Code F) if he meets other criteria. The Tribunal further ordered the creation of a supernumerary post if necessary and granted consequential benefits on a notional basis, to be completed within eight weeks