Student’s OMR Appeal Fails After Inspection Shows No Difference: Karnataka HC Orders ₹1 Lakh Costs

In brief

The question

1. Whether the appellant should be permitted to inspect the original OMR sheet notwithstanding the dismissal of her writ petition as withdrawn and the refusal to recall that dismissal.

The court held

The Court rejected the appeal.

It also directed

It directed the appellant to pay ₹1,00,000 in costs to the Advocates’ Library Fund within eight weeks and admonished her against misusing the Court’s process by bringing forward every grievance.

01Facts

The appellant challenged discrepancies she alleged in the OMR sheet for an examination conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA).

pp. 3–4

After initially identifying a discrepancy and then alleging that further answers she had marked were absent from the OMR sheet, she approached the Karnataka High Court.

pp. 3–4

The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn after her counsel sought leave to withdraw it; the Single Judge subsequently rejected her application to recall that dismissal.

pp. 5–6

In the appeal, the Division Bench permitted inspection of the original OMR sheet on a one-off basis, on the stated condition that the appeal would be dismissed with exemplary costs if the original matched the copy already produced.

pp. 6–7

Following inspection, the appellant filed an affidavit, but the Court found no difference between the copy supplied and the original inspected.

p. 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the appellant should be permitted to inspect the original OMR sheet notwithstanding the dismissal of her writ petition as withdrawn and the refusal to recall that dismissal.

pp. 5–7

ii.2. Whether, after inspection disclosed no difference between the original OMR sheet and the copy supplied, the appeal should be dismissed with costs.

p. 8

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

p. 1

The Court applied the principles that a candidate’s claim of merit should not be defeated by technicality, while recognising that unrestricted inspection of OMR sheets could open the door to repetitive claims by candidates; it therefore treated inspection as appropriate only as a one-off measure in the circumstances.

pp. 6–7

The Court also relied on the condition attached to its inspection order: if the original OMR sheet matched the copy already produced, the appeal would be dismissed with exemplary costs.

pp. 7–8

No precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 Section 4

04Reasoning

Although the Court recognised the risk of encouraging routine OMR-inspection requests, it allowed this appellant to inspect the original as an exceptional measure, balancing that concern against the need not to let technicality compromise a potentially meritorious claim.

pp. 6–7

Inspection then disclosed no difference between the original and the previously furnished copy, and the appellant’s subsequent affidavit did not advance her case.

p. 8

The condition attached to inspection therefore warranted dismissal with costs; the Court reduced the contemplated ₹2,50,000 cost to ₹1,00,000, considering that the appellant was a student.

p. 8