Incorrect OMR bubbling cannot justify rejection after the answer sheet has been evaluated.

DSSSB advertised the post of Special Educator (Primary), MCD, Post Code 15/17.

The applicant sat the written examination and was allotted Roll No. 2280001110. She relied on a result record showing 81.75 marks and shortlisting, and stated that she uploaded her e-dossier when required.

DSSSB later rejected her candidature, stating that the appropriate circles for her Roll Number, Question Booklet Number and post-code preferences had not been shaded correctly.

DSSSB maintained that she had incorrectly bubbled the last digit of her Roll Number, preventing the system from identifying her answer sheet.

The applicant challenged the rejection before the Tribunal. DSSSB disputed her claim and relied, among other things, on Neetu Yadav v. DSSSB & Ors.

1. Whether DSSSB could reject the applicant’s candidature for incorrect bubbling of her Roll Number after the record showed that her answer sheet had been evaluated, marks generated and reflected, and her candidature shortlisted for e-dossier submission.

2. Whether setting aside the rejection entitled the applicant to appointment, or instead required DSSSB to reassess her candidature under the applicable selection criteria.

Candidates are ordinarily required to comply with examination authorities’ OMR instructions, including correctly shading the relevant circles; the authority may prescribe such instructions and apply them uniformly.

However, as the Tribunal understood the Delhi High Court’s decision in Kusum Gupta v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1282/2025, an alleged bubbling error must be considered in light of what actually happened to the answer sheet: rejection solely on that ground is not sustainable mechanically where the sheet was in fact evaluated, marks were generated and the candidate proceeded further in the selection process.

A candidate does not acquire an indefeasible right to appointment merely by securing marks; eligibility, merit position, vacancy availability and other applicable selection conditions remain relevant.

The Tribunal accepted that the examination instructions required correct bubbling, but treated the decisive question as whether the applicant’s answer sheet had actually been processed.

The applicant produced a result record showing 81.75 marks and shortlisting, and the respondents did not provide sufficient material to establish that those marks did not relate to her or that her answer sheet had never been evaluated. Her subsequent permission to upload an e-dossier supported that conclusion.

Applying Kusum Gupta, the Tribunal distinguished a sheet that could not be evaluated from one that had been evaluated and generated a result; it therefore found Neetu Yadav did not alter the outcome on these facts.

It directed DSSSB to process her candidature on the basis of the marks in the record and the applicable recruitment rules and merit position.

Appointment was conditional on her being otherwise eligible and her marks being sufficient under the selection criteria; the exercise was to be completed within eight weeks.

She was not entitled to salary and allowances for the period she had not served, and any claim to seniority or other consequential benefits was to be considered under the applicable rules and appointment terms.

No order as to costs was made.