ORDER By Court -This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated 2.12.2013 passed in W.P.(C)No. 3342 of 2013, in and by which the learned Single Judge directed the appellant-Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi to consider the representation of respondent no.1 and pass appropriate order, ignoring minor technicalities, if there is no vagueness in the identification of OMR/answer sheet of respondent no.1. 2. The 1st respondent has appeared in the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination conducted by Jharkhand Academic Council on 26.4.2013. The respondent no.1 was given a Booklet series “D” bearing Booklet no.175936 and according to respondent no.1, he filled up the correct optional answer in his OMR answer-sheet and all the necessary information, which were required to be filled up. Further case of the 1st respondent is that in the result published by the Jharkhand Academic Council on 28.5.2013 the 1st respondent's result was rejected for the reason “Blank QBSE”. Further case of respondent no.1 is that he filed a representation before the Jharkhand Academic Council on 30.5.2013 but the same was not considered and no order has been passed and thereafter 1st respondent filed the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3342 of 2013, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, directing the Jharkhand Academic Council to consider the representation of the 1st respondent and pass appropriate order, ignoring the minor technicalities. 3. We have heard Mr.M.S. Anwar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr.Binod Singh, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the entire process of evaluation of OMR sheets of the Teacher Eligibility Test Examination was undertaken through a fully computerized system and the entire evaluation is computer generated and any omission to darken the bubbles will disqualify the candidate. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn our attention to the sample answer-sheet(Annexure-3) and submitted that in the OMR the candidate has certified that “ I have made entries to all the fields above and if found empty or improper, wrong entries my answer sheet will be rejected” and having so certified the answer sheet, it is not open to the candidate to agitate the rejection of answer sheet on the ground of Blank QBSE. In this regard, learned Senior counsel has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 8364 of 2011(Mohit Sharma Vrs. Staff Selection Commission). In this regard, learned Senior counsel has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 8364 of 2011(Mohit Sharma Vrs. Staff Selection Commission). 5. Mr.Binod Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1, has drawn attention of the Court to the various Annexures filed along with supplementary counter affidavit and submitted that in the case of several other candidates who have wrongly darkened their roll numbers/ not darkened their roll numbers/ Booklet No./Booklet Series, their answer sheets were considered and their results were not rejected on the ground of wrong darkening/ non darkening etc; whereas the result of the 1st respondent was wrongly rejected for the reason “Blank QBSE”. The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the certificate of the Invigilator found in the bottom of the sample OMR “This is to certify that I have verified all the entries and found to be correct” and submitted that when the Invigilator has certified that all the entries are found to be correct the answer sheet cannot be rejected on the ground of non darkening. 6. Without going into the merits of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, we are of the view that since the learned Single Judge has directed the Jharkhand Academic Council to consider the representation of the 1st respondent, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the rival contentions. Suffice it to direct the appellant-Jharkhand Academic Council to consider the representation of the 1st respondent and pass appropriate order, ignoring the minor technicalities, within a period of two weeks from today. 7. This Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of.