IMPROPER REJECTION OF CANDIDATURE DUE TO TECHNICAL OMR FILLING ERRORS IN ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION COLUMN IS UNTENABLE.

The applicant, an Unreserved category candidate, applied for the post of TGT (Hindi) under Post Codes 109/2012 and 07/2013

She appeared in a common examination on 28.01.2014 and secured 112 marks, which was higher than the cut-off of 104 marks

While she was considered for Post Code 109/2012, the respondents rejected her candidature for Post Code 07/2013 on the grounds that she failed to correctly "bubble" or fill the requisite qualification columns in the OMR sheet

The applicant contended that since it was a common examination and she met the merit criteria, her technical error in filling the OMR sheet should not result in the forfeiture of her appointment

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s candidature for Post Code 07/2013 solely on the grounds of incorrect filling/bubbling of the qualification column (Column 13) in the OMR sheet was legally sustainable

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to appointment to the post of TGT (Hindi) having secured marks higher than the last selected candidate

Technical errors in OMR sheets, resulting from faulty design or ambiguous instructions, should not deprive a meritorious candidate of employment if there was no intent to mislead

Precedent in Amit Kumar & Ors. vs. DSSSB & Ors. (O.A. No. 1497/2017), which held that Column 13 of the OMR sheet was poorly designed

The Secretary, DSSSB vs. Devender Yadav & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 7954/2024), which established that where candidates make no attempt to conceal qualifications, technical OMR errors do not warrant rejection

The Tribunal observed that a common examination was conducted for both post codes and the applicant had clearly bubbled Post Code 07/2013 on her OMR sheet

It noted that the controversy regarding "Column 13" of the OMR sheet was already settled (res integra) by prior judgments which found the column's design to be faulty and its instructions misleading

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicant did not attempt to conceal her academic qualifications or mislead the authorities, and because her merit (112 marks) was indisputably higher than the cut-off, the respondents' decision to ignore her candidature was arbitrary

The Tribunal emphasized that the mere existence of separate post codes for the same post (TGT Hindi) does not alter the nature of the post or justify ignoring a candidate who falls within the zone of consideration

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application, quashing the rejection of the applicant's candidature and directed the respondents to issue an offer of appointment to the applicant within two months, granting her consequential benefits on a notional basis