Strict adherence to OMR instructions is mandatory; incorrect bubbling of identification details justifies rejection of candidature.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant, appeared for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion to the post of Inspector of Posts pursuant to a notification dated 09.09.2019

When the results were declared on 24.06.2020, the applicant’s name appeared in the rejected candidates list at Sl. No. 241 with the remark "Error in OMR Sheet"

The applicant admitted that while he wrote his Roll Number correctly in the boxes, he accidentally darkened the wrong bubble for a single digit in Paper-I

He alleged that the Invigilator assured him it would not be a problem as the machine would read the barcode

The respondents contended that the instructions on the Admit Card, Question Booklet, and OMR sheet explicitly stated that failure to correctly fill particulars would result in non-evaluation

A total of 390 candidates were rejected nationwide for similar OMR errors

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s candidature due to incorrect bubbling of the Roll Number on the OMR sheet was legally sustainable.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the evaluation of his OMR sheet on grounds of lack of malafide intent and alleged verbal assurance by the Invigilator.

Part-II of Appendix-37 of the Postal Manual Vol.-IV, which mandates strict adherence to instructions for filling answer books and OMR sheets

The principle that recruitment actions must be regulated strictly by the rules, as established in T. Kannan & Ors v. S.K. Nayyar (1991) 1 SCC 544, A.N. Sehgal and Ors v. Raje Ram Sheoran (1992) (1) Supp 1 SCC 304, and State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310

Poonam Dwivedi v. State of UP (Civil Appeal of 2026), which held that in large-scale public recruitments processed via computer software, any error in the application/OMR is bound to result in rejection to ensure the integrity and expeditious completion of the process

The Tribunal reasoned that the instructions provided to the candidates were clear, multiple, and unambiguous, appearing on the Admit Card, Question Booklet, and the OMR sheet itself

The applicant’s failure to correctly darken the bubbles was a breach of these mandatory instructions

The Tribunal noted that OMR evaluation is an automated electronic process; therefore, any inconsistency in filling the bubbles naturally leads to rejection by the scanning machine

The court dismissed the applicant's argument regarding the Invigilator's assurance, noting that Invigilators are present for conduct and discipline, not to provide legal clarifications or waive examination rules

Significantly, the Tribunal held that granting relief to the applicant would constitute unfair discrimination against the 389 other candidates rejected for similar errors

The court emphasized that sympathy and sentiment have no place in judicial review when rules are clear

the direct answer to the issues is that a candidate bears the sole responsibility for correctly filling the OMR sheet, and failure to do so justifies non-evaluation

The Original Application (OA) was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the applicant