ORDER I.A. ANSARI, J. The appellant herein was an applicant in Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “BCECE, 2014”), seeking admission, in M.B.B.S. Course, in the academic session 2014. 2. The preliminary examination of BCECE, 2014, was conducted on 13.04.2014 and the result thereof was published on 02.05.2014. The appellant herein was declared successful in the said preliminary examination. The second stage/final examination of BCECE, 2014, was held on 18.05.2014. Though the results were published on 01.06.2014, the appellant’s name did not figure in the result sheet. 3. With the help of an application, made on 10.06.2014, the appellant made a representation to the Controller of Examination, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) stating therein, inter alia, that she had made a wrong entry in the column of the roll number in the OMR answer sheet of Chemistry paper and she, therefore, requested the Board to ignore her mistake, evaluate the OMR answer sheet of Chemistry paper and publish the result after taking into account the marks secured by her not only in the subject of Chemistry, but also in the other subjects, wherein she had appeared. However, the Board, vide communication, dated 13.06.2014, provided to the appellant the details of the marks obtained by the appellant, in various subjects, in the final examination of BCECE, 2014, but, at the bottom of the said communication, it was mentioned that the appellant’s OMR answer sheet of Chemistry paper had been rejected due to wrong entry of roll number in digits as well as bubbles in the OMR answer sheet. 4. On receiving the communication, dated 13.06.2014, aforementioned, the appellant rushed to this Court by way of a writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to CWJC No. 10178 of 2014, seeking appropriate writ to be issued commanding the respondents to declare her result after evaluation of her OMR answer sheet of Chemistry paper and by adding thereto the marks secured by her in other subjects. 5. Resisting the writ petition, the respondents brought on record the instructions issued by the Board, wherein it was clearly indicated that in the event if any mistake being committed by a candidate, his/her answer sheet was liable to be rejected. 6. 5. Resisting the writ petition, the respondents brought on record the instructions issued by the Board, wherein it was clearly indicated that in the event if any mistake being committed by a candidate, his/her answer sheet was liable to be rejected. 6. By order, dated 09.07.2014, a learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition on reaching the conclusion that the error, committed by the writ petitioner (i.e., the appellant herein), had led the respondents to reject her OMR answer sheet of Chemistry paper inasmuch as the writ petitioner (i.e., the appellant herein) had not filled up the OMR answer sheet of Chemistry paper correctly and her OMR answer sheet of Chemistry paper could not have been evaluated and was, therefore, rightly rejected. 7. In the order, dated 09.07.2014, aforementioned, the learned single Judge has taken note of the fact that the only plea, taken by the writ petitioner (i.e., the appellant herein), was that the mistake committed by her was a human error, her error may be condoned and direction be issued for evaluation of her OMR answer sheet of Chemistry paper and, then, publish her result by taking a sympathetic view of the matter. However, the learned single Judge reached the finding that the writ petitioner (i.e., the appellant herein) was negligent and, thus, no relief could be granted to her. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. The relevant part of the order, date 09.07.2014, aforementioned reads as under: “Apparently, the petitioner was negligent in filling up her Roll Number in OMR answer sheet of Chemistry paper. She is aspiring to get herself admitted in MBBS course. On becoming a Doctor, she wants to serve the society. I am afraid, if such a negligent and careless person is allowed to become MBBS Doctor, then she, instead of becoming a boon for the society, would be a liability for the whole society. Such a negligent and careless person does not deserve any sympathy by this Court and cannot be allowed to become a MBBS Doctor by taking a sympathetic view by directing the respondent Board and its functionaries to re-evaluate her OMR answer sheet of Chemistry paper. In the result, the writ application has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.” 8. Against the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant has filed this appeal. 9. We have heard Mr. In the result, the writ application has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.” 8. Against the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant has filed this appeal. 9. We have heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Board. 10. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that the appellant’s OMR answer sheet ought to have been evaluated considering the fact that the appellant was a meritorious candidate, she has committed a bona fide mistake and she ought not to be treated as negligent and careless person, who does not deserve any sympathy. Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, has also submitted that the Board acted in an arbitrary manner in refusing to evaluate the appellant’s OMR answer sheet of Chemistry paper and thereby denied to her the right to seek admission in the M.B.B.S. Course. Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, has pointed out that in the OMR answer sheet, there is a column, wherein two invigilators were required to sign if they found entries in the name, roll number and/or signature wrong/incorrect/erroneous, but they, too, had failed to perform their part of the duty by not pointing out the mistake, which was rectifiable, and, hence, such an inaction, on the part of the invigilators, has resulted in rejection of the appellant’s OMR answer sheet of Chemistry paper. The approach of the respondent-Board, according to Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, was tantamount to allowing technicalities override merit and thereby defeat the very purpose of holding a competitive examination. 11. Opposing the appeal, Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent-Board, has drawn our attention to the OMR answer sheet, annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, which contain important instructions to follow, while filling up the OMR answer sheet. The important instructions read as under: 1. Write in rectangular boxes (?) in all items of OMR Answer sheet and darken the corresponding circle (?) completely with BLUE/BLACK BALL POINT PEN only. If any candidate uses the pencil for darkening the answer sheet, his/her answer sheet will be rejected. 2. Ensure that you have correctly filled up your Roll Number, Booklet No. and Centre Code in the corresponding spaces provided. 3. DO NOT scribble, scratch, cut, tear, fold, wrinkle or do any rough work on the OMR Answer sheet. 4. If any candidate uses the pencil for darkening the answer sheet, his/her answer sheet will be rejected. 2. Ensure that you have correctly filled up your Roll Number, Booklet No. and Centre Code in the corresponding spaces provided. 3. DO NOT scribble, scratch, cut, tear, fold, wrinkle or do any rough work on the OMR Answer sheet. 4. The candidate must keep the carbon/duplicate copy of OMR Answer sheet intact and safely, it may be verified at the time of counseling. 5. The candidate must fully satisfy themselves about the accuracy of the answer before darkening the appropriate circle as no change in answer once marked is allowed. Use of eraser or white/correction fluid on the Answer Sheet is not permissible as the Answer Sheets are machine gradable and it may lead to wrong evaluation. 6. The Questions are of multiple-choice type. Each question is provided with four choices of Answers, out of which ONLY ONE is MOST APPROPRIATE. The candidate must darken the appropriate circle provided in front of the question number using BLUE/BLACK Ball Point Pen only. 7. Answer sheet will be processed by electronic means. Invalidation of answer due to incorrect method of filling will be sole responsibility of the candidate. 8. “Bar Code” printed on the Answer Sheet must not be tampered or in any way marked; otherwise the candidature will be rejected. 9. For verification of your handwriting, it is necessary to put your signature in Hindi & English after writing the prescribed TEXT, which is printed on the right side; otherwise your answer sheet/candidature will be rejected. 10. Use of Electronic Calculator, log table, slide rule and communication devices such as mobile phone, pager etc. is completely prohibited. 11. In case you do not follow the above instructions and the entries related to you in this answer sheet is found incorrect/incomplete/untrue/fraudulent before or after your admission, your answer sheet is liable to be rejected for which you yourself will be fully responsible.” 12. From careful reading of the important instructions, which have been re-produced above, it becomes clear that every candidate was required to correctly fill up, amongst others, his/her roll number in the OMR answer sheet making it clear that the answer sheet will be processed by electronic means and invalidation of answer sheet due to incorrect method of filling up, will be the sole responsibility of the candidate. In other words, the instructions aforementioned make it abundantly clear that in case a candidate does not follow the instructions and any entry, in the OMR answer sheet, is found to be incorrect/incomplete/untrue/fraudulent, the answer sheet shall be liable to be rejected. 13. In the backdrop of the above instructions, Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent-Board, has contended that if at all any indulgence is granted to the appellant, it would lead to cascading affect inasmuch as it would destroy the entire selection or admission process inasmuch as there are other candidates, too, whose candidature stand rejected, because of errors committed in incorrectly filling up OMR answer sheet. It was also submitted, on behalf of the respondent-Board, that the last date fixed for final allotment of seats was 18.08.2014 and the appellant, on account of her own mistake, could not be brought to the zone of consideration. 14. Having considered the submissions, which had been made on behalf of the parties concerned, we find that the appellant’s case cannot be considered and no order could be issued directing the respondent-Board to consider evaluation of the appellant’s OMR answer sheet of Chemistry paper, which has been rejected by the respondent-Board, because of the fact that the roll number was incorrectly mentioned by the appellant in the OMR answer sheet, both in digits as well as in bubbles, more particularly, when candidates, who have committed similar mistakes, have already been disqualified. 15. Further-more, an OMR answer sheet is evaluated by computer and the computer would not evaluate an OMR answer sheet, which does not correctly mention the roll number of the candidate concerned. 16. In the circumstances indicated above, giving any indulgence to the appellant would have far reaching consequences inasmuch as those, who have not approached the Court, would be adversely affected and those, who have already been selected and taken admission, their selection and admission would have to be interfered with. 17. Coupled with the above, we are clearly of the view that the action taken by the respondent-Board was neither arbitrary nor illegal. In such circumstances, it is not legally permissible to interfere with the decision of the respondent-Board. 18. 17. Coupled with the above, we are clearly of the view that the action taken by the respondent-Board was neither arbitrary nor illegal. In such circumstances, it is not legally permissible to interfere with the decision of the respondent-Board. 18. It is needless to mention that any order, if, now, issued in favour of the appellant, would involve displacement of candidates, who have already taken admission in different medical colleges, and would, thus, cause serious prejudice to the selected candidates, who do not stand impleaded in the writ petition or in the appeal. 19. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that any direction permitting evaluation of the appellant’s OMR answer sheet of Chemistry paper, despite her having mentioned wrongly her roll number, would lead to making of fresh writ applications for the similar directions by those candidates, whose OMR answer sheets have been treated as invalid. 20. Because of what has been discussed and pointed out above, we find and hold that there is no illegality and/or arbitrariness in the action taken by the respondent-Board, when the appellant’s case for evaluation was rejected, and the learned single Judge has duly considered all aspects of the matter and committed no error in upholding the decision of the respondent-Board. 21. For the reasons indicated above, this appeal is not admitted and shall stand accordingly dismissed. 22. No order as to costs.