Technical OMR errors cannot be treated as “malpractice” akin to impersonation, Delhi HC rules

The Department of Posts conducted an examination for recruitment to Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant posts in the Gujarat Circle for 2013–2014.

The respondents were selected after clearing the examination.

The Department subsequently cancelled the examination results, alleging large-scale malpractice.

Following litigation before the Tribunal, the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court in Monu Tomar v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2239, directed that candidates suspected of malpractice could be proceeded against, and observed that violations such as appearing at more than one examination centre would also be treated as malpractice.

After investigation, the respondents’ services were terminated for alleged irregularities in their OMR sheets, including roll-number mismatches, overwriting, use of whitener, incorrect registration numbers, failure to bubble the booklet number and failure to write their names.

The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the termination orders and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits.

The Union of India challenged that decision under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether errors and irregularities in filling OMR sheets—such as overwriting, use of whitener, incorrect entry or bubbling of roll/registration numbers, and failure to fill certain particulars—constituted “malpractice” within the meaning of the Supreme Court’s order in Monu Tomar.

Whether the respondents’ candidature could lawfully be cancelled and their services terminated on the basis of those OMR-related irregularities.

The Court applied the binding directions issued by the Supreme Court in Monu Tomar v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2239, which permitted action against candidates suspected of malpractice and specifically included violations of examination conditions “such as having appeared in more than one centre” within the scope of malpractice.

The Court held that this expression had to be interpreted contextually and ejusdem generis with the example given by the Supreme Court: only deliberate and serious violations akin to impersonation or conscious fraud would qualify as malpractice, not every procedural or technical breach in an examination.

The Court also exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226, declining interference where the Tribunal’s decision was legally sound.

The Supreme Court’s order in Monu Tomar arose from an examination tainted by suspected large-scale malpractice and referred to conduct such as appearing at multiple centres, which indicated impersonation and deliberate fraud.

The Union’s interpretation—that breach of any instruction printed on the reverse of the OMR sheet automatically amounted to malpractice—was rejected as excessively broad and inconsistent with the context of the Supreme Court’s order.

The respondents’ alleged acts were procedural mistakes in recording or correcting examination particulars, not conduct comparable to impersonation or deliberate fraud.

Further, their OMR sheets had been successfully evaluated, and they had been selected and appointed, demonstrating that the mistakes were not fatal or incapable of correction.

Consequently, the respondents could not be treated as having committed malpractice for purposes of Monu Tomar.

Their candidature could therefore not be cancelled, nor could their services be terminated on that basis.

The Tribunal’s order directing reinstatement with consequential benefits was upheld, and the Union of India’s writ petition was dismissed.