Use of whitener or eraser contrary to mandatory OMR instructions justifies rejection of candidature.

The applicant participated in a 2012 North Central Railway Group D recruitment. He passed the written examination and Physical Efficiency Test but was not called for document verification and medical examination.

In response to his 2023 representation, the Railway Recruitment Cell stated that his candidature had been rejected because he had used whitener/eraser on answers to Questions 41 and 85 and had not properly filled the answer to Question 56 on his OMR sheet.

The applicant challenged that decision, arguing, among other things, that he should not have been permitted to take the Physical Efficiency Test if his OMR sheet was invalid.

The respondents relied on the examination instructions and prior decisions concerning strict compliance with OMR requirements.

No rejoinder affidavit was filed despite opportunities.

1. Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the applicant’s candidature for using whitener/eraser and improperly filling an answer on the OMR sheet, contrary to the examination instructions.

2. Whether the applicant’s participation in the Physical Efficiency Test, or his asserted marks and rank, entitled him to further consideration despite the alleged OMR violations.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for the applicant’s Original Application.

The OMR instructions required answers to be marked in the prescribed manner, prohibited changes by erasing, cutting or overwriting, and stated that non-compliance could invalidate the answer sheet or cancel candidature.

The recruitment notification also made admission to the examination provisional and permitted rejection of candidature if a deficiency was later discovered.

Relying on the Supreme Court decision in G. Hemalathaa (case citation not provided), as quoted in the judgment, the Tribunal applied the principle that mandatory examination instructions must be strictly followed and cannot be relaxed on sympathetic grounds.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s OMR sheet showed use of whitener/eraser on two answers and an improperly filled answer on another, conduct prohibited by the express instructions.

It held that allowing the applicant to proceed to the Physical Efficiency Test did not confer a right to later stages because the notification permitted scrutiny and rejection at a subsequent stage.

Applying the strict-compliance principle, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not claim consideration for document verification or medical examination once the instructions had been violated.

Any interim order was discharged, and related miscellaneous applications were disposed of.