OMR-sheet errors do not constitute malpractice absent impersonation or comparable deliberate fraud.

The respondents were selected for Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant posts in the 2013–2014 recruitment conducted by CMC Limited for the Department of Posts.

Their candidature was terminated, along with that of other candidates, on suspicion of malpractice.

Following the Supreme Court’s directions in Monu Tomar v. UOI, individual show-cause notices were issued.

Most candidates were reinstated, but 34 of the 37 candidates not reinstated—including the respondents—challenged their termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The CAT allowed their application on 31 October 2025, and the Union of India challenged that decision in this writ petition.

The allegations against the respondents principally concerned errors or omissions in OMR entries, use of correction fluid, and, in two cases, alleged signature mismatch.

Whether errors or omissions in completing OMR sheets, including use of correction fluid and incorrect or incomplete entries, constituted “malpractice” under the Supreme Court’s directions in Monu Tomar.

Whether the CAT’s order allowing the respondents’ application and setting aside their termination should be upheld.

In Monu Tomar v. UOI, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2239, the Supreme Court directed that candidates suspected of malpractice could be proceeded against after being given an opportunity to respond, and stated that violations such as appearing at more than one examination centre would also be treated as malpractice.

In Union of India v. Mahipal, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6392, the Court interpreted that direction to cover breaches akin to impersonation—conscious and deliberate fraud—rather than merely procedural or technical errors in completing an OMR sheet; it also treated the evaluation of an OMR sheet as relevant to whether an error prevented assessment of the candidate’s performance.

The Court further relied on the Department of Posts’ circular dated 17 April 2025 and the decision in Union of India v. Shri Sukhvinder concerning termination based on signature mismatch without a departmental inquiry and an established evidentiary basis.

Applying Mahipal, the Court held that incorrect or incomplete roll numbers, registration numbers, or booklet numbers, and the use of correction fluid, were not comparable to appearing at multiple centres or otherwise committing impersonation.

These were errors in completing the OMR sheets, not the kind of deliberate fraud that the Supreme Court’s use of “malpractice” encompassed.

The respondents’ OMR sheets had in fact been evaluated, indicating that the errors did not make assessment impossible.

As to the alleged signature mismatches, the Court noted the Department’s 2025 circular and the coordinate Bench’s decision in Sukhvinder, and found no basis to disturb the CAT’s decision on those cases either.

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and compliance with the CAT’s judgment was directed within eight weeks of the judgment being uploaded.