Manual Revaluation of OMR Sheets After Successful Electronic Scanning for Selection Is Impermissible and Arbitrary

The applicants applied for Group D posts under Employment Notice No. NER/RRC/GRP/D/2/10 dated 15.12.2010

They successfully cleared the written examination, Physical Efficiency Test (PET), medical examination, and document verification

While the written OMR sheets were initially evaluated through an electronic scanning process, the respondents subsequently performed a manual re-evaluation.

On 08.07.2014, the respondents issued an impugned order cancelling the applicants' candidature on the grounds that their OMR sheets were "tainted/tampered" because an eraser was allegedly used on certain questions

The applicants challenged this cancellation, arguing that once the computer evaluation (which is calibrated for such discrepancies) found no fault, the manual re-evaluation was unauthorized and discriminatory

1. Whether the respondents were justified in manually re-evaluating OMR sheets and cancelling candidature for alleged tampering after the candidates had successfully passed the computerized evaluation and subsequent recruitment stages.

2. Whether the act of manual re-evaluation, in the absence of specific rules permitting the same after computerized scanning, vitiates the purity of the selection process.

The instructions printed on the OMR sheet, specifically Condition No. 4, stipulated that answer sheets would be evaluated via electronic scanning and that incorrect entries might render them invalid

In the absence of statutory provisions, courts should not direct re-evaluation and must presume the sanctity of the selection process unless material error is demonstrated (H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur; Ran Vijay Singh v. State of UP; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth).

The Tribunal found the respondents' actions contradictory and lacking legal basis. It noted that the OMR sheets were designed for electronic scanning, and all instructions (including prohibitions on erasers) should have been calibrated into the computer system.

If the computer evaluation—which is the primary and prescribed method—detected no tampering, the respondents failed to provide a cogent reason for a subsequent manual re-check.

The Tribunal reasoned that if a computer fails to detect tampering that a human eye allegedly catches, it renders the entire computerized process unreliable; conversely, if the computer found no error, the manual intervention suggests potential ex post facto tampering or bias.

The Tribunal observed that the applicants had already reached the final stages (medical and document verification), and the sudden manual re-evaluation at the eleventh hour appeared arbitrary and was not supported by the cited case laws, which typically discourage court-ordered re-evaluation rather than protecting unauthorized manual re-evaluation by authorities.

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application, quashed the impugned order dated 08.07.2014, and directed the respondents to consider the applicants’ candidature based on merit, publish their results, and issue appointment orders within three months, provided they meet the cut-off and other eligibility criteria.