JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the official respondents in not correctly evaluating her answer-sheet/OMR sheet in the written examination that was conducted for appointment on the post of District Manager. 2. Petitioner applied for appointment on the post of District Manager with the Rajasthan State Food & Civil Supply Nigam Ltd., Jaipur. Petitioner as well as respondent No.3-Priyanka Saini both belongs to OBC category. While respondent No.3 was selected having 116.67 marks showing her name at Sr.No.84 in the merit list, petitioner was not selected having secured 108 marks at Sr.No.163, whereas she should have been placed at merit position No.124 if her answer-sheet/OMR sheet for Question Nos.77 to 100 has correctly been evaluated by the respondents, which information has been furnished by the respondents to the petitioner vide information dated 8/5/2012 sought by her under Right to Information Act, 2005. It is contended that had the correct evaluation was made, petitioner would have secured appointment quo respondent No.3. Learned counsel for petitioner has invited attention of the court to this effect towards copy of the OMR sheet filed along with information dated 8/5/2012 (Ann.7). 3. Shri V.D. Gathala, Additional Government Counsel for State-respondents No.1 and 2 has opposed the writ petition and argued that result was declared on 26/12/2011 wherein petitioner was shown to have secured 108 marks at Sr.No.163. Petitioner was provided a question-paper under D-Series. It was clearly mentioned in the OMR answer-sheet to follow the instructions as provided on the OMR answer-sheet as also on the admit card. Such instructions were meant to be strictly followed by the candidate while marking answers on OMR sheet. The instructions clearly provide that the candidate should give answer by clearly filling the blank space i.e. darkening the circle against the right answer. He is required to darken for only one option. It was also stipulated therein that the candidate is not allowed to change the answer once given by darkening the circle. Thus, the candidate was not allowed to erase either by blade or otherwise to change the answer, in other words, the candidate cannot change the option once have darkened the circle. It was also stipulated therein that the candidate is not allowed to change the answer once given by darkening the circle. Thus, the candidate was not allowed to erase either by blade or otherwise to change the answer, in other words, the candidate cannot change the option once have darkened the circle. Learned Additional Government Counsel submits that the examination was conducted through the agency namely; Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd. and comments were called from the said Corporation with regard to petitioner's OMR answer-sheet, which "according to OMR Technology Guidelines", apprised the official respondents three types of errors in OMR sheets resulted in faulty outputs viz. (i) OMR Reader Machine fails to read a particular sheet due to improper scaling of OMR sheets according to time line (may be due to defective cutting of OMR sheets), (ii) while reading the marked answers, OMR Reader comes across a 'mark', which may be fault in the paper, dirt or a poorly rubbed out mark or any other stray mark on the OMR sheet and (iii) OMR Reader fails to read the responses. Extent of this error is determined by the design of read head. Accuracy in this case depends on design of the form and validation applied. 4. Shri Prahlad Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner has to blame herself if she has initially attempted one option as correct by darkening the circle and thereafter erased it and then chose another option. It is argued that as per observation made by the Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd., it has been found that user of OMR Sheet No.12501 i.e. petitioner has poorly rubbed/scratched the OMR answer sheet using eraser/blade at the specified location, hence OMR reading equipment has rightly assessed her OMR sheet. It is contended that educational qualification required for consideration for the post of District Manager vide advertisement is degree of MBA (Marketing) from the recognised University established under the law of India, whereas the petitioner does not hold the minimum educational qualification of MBA. She is having P.G. Diploma (Retail Management), whereas it should be Marketing. Therefore, she was not eligible to appear in the examination. 5. She is having P.G. Diploma (Retail Management), whereas it should be Marketing. Therefore, she was not eligible to appear in the examination. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that issue that has been contested between the petitioner and respondent No.3 is correct evaluation of OMR sheet or otherwise, it has not been seriously pressed upon on either behalf that petitioner was not eligible to apply. 6. Shri Prahlad Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 has rejoined and submitted that the issue with regard to qualification has been raised by respondent No.3 and also in para 4 of their reply. 7. From perusal of the OMR sheet filed along with information dated 8/5/2012 (Ann.7) and also the certified copy thereof produced during the course of documents, the specific plea that has been set up by the official respondents that it was on account of poor rubbing of the option or change of option after scratching or rubbing cannot be accepted as correct as in the present case, it does not appear that petitioner had erased the options given from 77 to 100 rather, there has not been proper evaluation of the OMR answer-sheet of the petitioner. 8. In the facts of the present case, therefore, the petitioner is directed to produce before the official respondents all the relevant documents regarding her educational qualification along with syllabus of the subjects that were studied by her in decree course of Diploma on the basis of which she applied as the official respondents themselves have permitted her to appear in the examination. The respondents are directed to check the OMR answer-sheet of the petitioner afresh and Respondent No.1-Principal Secretary, Food & Civil Supply Department, Jaipur shall take fresh decision as to appointment on the post in question within one month from the date copy of this order is produced before him.With that direction, writ petition is disposed of.Writ Petition Disposed of as above. *******