ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned senior counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner appeared in Teachers Eligibility Test2012 (for short TET2012). According to the petitioner, he filled up all the required column, which were required to be filled up in OMR Sheet. When the result was published, the petitioner was not amongst the successful candidates, rather it was communicated to the petitioner that her answer sheet has not been evaluated as OMR Sheet does not contain signature of the petitioner. In that event, the petitioner moved to this Court vide WPC No. 5198 of 2013. The Court having found that all the columns of the OMR Sheet, which were required to be filled up, had been filled up but the petitioner could not put her signature at the place provided over the OMR Sheet, which defect was found to be trivial by the Court and accordingly, said writ application was disposed of by directing the Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council to consider the petitioner's representation ignoring the trifling defect/ technicality and pass an appropriate order within ten days and communicate the same to the petitioner in writing. 3. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, a order was passed by the Chairman, JAC on 04/01/2014, which was communicated to the petitioner vide memo no. JAC/Vidhi/81/13/CC/24/14/Ranchi dated 04/01/2014, wherein it has been stated that undertaking was to be given by the petitioner over the OMR Sheet to the effect that 'this is to certify that I have made entries to all the fields above and if found empty or improper, wrong entries my answer sheet will be rejected'. This certificate was not signed by the petitioner and, therefore, the OMR Sheet was not evaluated. Being aggrieved with that order, the petitioner again filed this writ application. 4. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly, all the columns of the OMR Sheet, which were required to be filled up, had been filled up and only the petitioner had forgotten to put her signature over the certificate, which was at the bottom of the OMR Sheet, but the requirement for evaluation of the OMR Sheet was that all the columns should have been filled up correctly, properly and no wrong entries should be made. Admittedly, all the columns required to be filled up, had correctly been filled up. Admittedly, all the columns required to be filled up, had correctly been filled up. In that event, the JAC should have put the OMR Sheet of the petitioner for its evaluation. Since, this has not been done a great injustice has been caused to the petitioner and, therefore, direction be issued to the JAC to evaluate the OMR Sheet of the petitioner and to publish her result. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed, wherein it has been stated that since the petitioner has not put her signature over that space of certificate, her OMR Sheet was not evaluated as a clearcut instruction had been issued to the petitioner if any of the columns of the OMR Sheet is not filled up, the OMR Sheet will not be put for its evaluation. 6. Further submission was that since the signature of the petitioner was not there, it was not possible for the authority to ascertain as to whether genuine candidate had taken the examination or not and, thereby, the authority within its competence, has passed the order to the effect that OMR Sheet was not evaluated as all the columns of the OMR Sheet had not been filled up and, therefore, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 7. On looking to the OMR Sheet, it does appear that over the top of the OMR Sheet there are columns for 'Roll Number, Question Booklet Number, Language Code, Question Booklet Series, Category and Applied For'. Only these columns were required to be filled up correctly and then the middle column is there where options of all the questions have been given. Below that one column is there which had to be filled up by the petitioner. That column reads as follows: “This is to certify that I have made entries to all the fields above and if found empty or improper, wrong entries my answer sheet will be rejected.” 8. Admittedly, all the columns, as have been mentioned above, have been filled up correctly. Only thing which the petitioner did not do is that he could not put her signature over that certificate. As has been noted above, the only condition which has been stipulated for evaluation of OMR Sheet is that all the columns should necessarily be filled up with correct information. Only thing which the petitioner did not do is that he could not put her signature over that certificate. As has been noted above, the only condition which has been stipulated for evaluation of OMR Sheet is that all the columns should necessarily be filled up with correct information. It has never been the case of the respondent that those columns had not been filled up correctly and, therefore, even if the petitioner has not put the signature over that column of certificate, it hardly matters. So far the true identity of the petitioner is concerned that must have been verified from the Admit Card and the signature taken in the attendance sheet. 9. While hearing, a doubt arose in my mind as to on account of signature being not put over that column whether the OMR Sheet was acceptable to the computer for its evaluation and, therefore, I asked the learned counsel appearing for JAC to give correct picture. Accordingly, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that OMR Sheet has never been rejected by the computer, rather during verification when the signature was not found, it has been rejected manually. 10. Under that situation, I do find that injustice has been caused to the petitioner in not getting the OMR Sheet of the petitioner evaluated and hence, as stated above, it becomes desirable that the OMR Sheet of the petitioner be evaluated. Accordingly, the Chairman, Jharkhand Academic Council is hereby directed to get the OMR Sheet of the petitioner evaluated and the result be published as early as possible. 11. Since, in the peculiar circumstances this order is being passed, it may not be treated as precedent. 12. With these observations, this writ application stands allowed.