JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla J.—Petitioner-Santosh Kumar Pandey is before this Court with following reliefs : (i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to make correct evaluation of the answer sheet of petitioner with Roll No. 016826 of series-A and modify the result to said extent accordingly of Assistant Prosecution Officer Examination 2015. (ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to appear in main examination of Assistant Prosecution Officer Examination 2015. 2. Brief background of the case are that U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad issued advertisement on 29th April, 2015 in various newspapers for carrying out recruitment on the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer. Petitioner, pursuant to the said advertisement in question being fully eligible, applied for consideration of his candidature in prescribed format. The Commission issued Admit Card to petitioner with Roll No. 016826 for examination to be held on 26th July, 2015 at Agra Centre. Petitioner claims that he appeared in the examination and has been allowed Question Booklet of Series ‘A’ and petitioner undertook the said examination in question and in the said examination that contains total 150 questions against which 150 marks to be awarded, each question carrying one mark, petitioner claims that he has been awarded 38 marks, whereas cut of marks for General Category Candidate was 92. Petitioner submits that he has evaluated the questions qua the answers and as per the answer key provided for petitioner was entitled to receive 120 numbers and in view of this, petitioner submits that he represented the matter and as petitioner in his OMR answer-sheet has mentioned ‘D’, he requested to rectify the said defect/error. Petitioner submits that he has been trying to contact U.P. Public Service Commission and in this background as his grievance remained unattended, petitioner is before this Court. 3. On the presentation of the writ petition in question, on 9th February, 2015, we have proceeded to ask Shri M.N. Singh, Advocate to obtain requisite instructions by U.P. Public Service Commission and pursuant to the directives issued by this Court, requisite instructions alongwith relevant record pertaining to petitioner has been produced and thereafter the matter has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of parties. 4. 4. Shri Anil Tiwary, Advocate appearing alongwith Shri Punit Khare, Advocate and Shri Shardeshwar Mishra, Advocate submitted with vehemence that, in the present case, there is no mischief on the part of the petitioner, nor there is any situation and possibility of petitioner being benefited out of said situation and once there is humane error on the face of it, then this Court should come to the rescue of the petitioner by getting the answer-sheet of petitioner manually examined and instructions should be interpreted in the context of the object of holding examination i.e. to get the best of candidate and accordingly, in the peculiar facts of the case when petitioner is not to gain anything on account of the wrong description of code, the relief should be accorded. 5. The request made on behalf of petitioner has been resisted by Shri M.N. Singh, Advcoate by submitting that as far as instructions in question are concerned, they are self contained and for breach of instructions clear cut consequences have also been provided for and here there are every possibility of misuse and in such a situation, as in the instructions categorical mention has been given that once entries have been made, then it cannot be changed, in view of this, this Court should not at all interfere when the Commission has proceeded to enforce its instructions in question. 6. “To err is human” is the hallmark of the argument advanced from the side of petitioner i.e. forgiveness is a worthy response failings. 7. We have proceeded to examine the facts of the case and what we find in the present case is that petitioner has been a candidate in the examination to be conducted by U.P. Public Service Commission Allahabad that was holding “Assistant Prosecution Officer Examination 2015” preliminary examination and therein the roll number of petitioner has been 016826 and the Centre that has been allotted to petitioner has been R.B.S. Inter College Agra. Petitioner has been supplied with ‘A’ series booklet and in the booklet in question important instruction has been clearly mentioned on the cover page. Same provided for as follows: DO NOT OPEN THIS TEST BOOKLET UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO. Petitioner has been supplied with ‘A’ series booklet and in the booklet in question important instruction has been clearly mentioned on the cover page. Same provided for as follows: DO NOT OPEN THIS TEST BOOKLET UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO. TO MARK ANSWER USE BLACK BALLPOINT PEN ONLY SERIES A Code : BTPUN 2015 Subject : GENERAL KNOWLEDGE & LAW Time : 2 Hours Maximum Marks : 150 In numbers Writ your Roll Number in the box In words IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS 1. Do not writ anything anywhere on the cover page or inside the test booklet. 2. The Candidate should mention his/her Roll Number, Subject, Question Booklet series on the Answer-Sheet correctly, otherwise the Answer-Sheet will not be evaluated and the candidate will solely responsible for it. 3. Rought work is not allow in the Test Booklet or in Answer Sheet. If you need a working sheet to do rough work, please ask the Invigilator for it and before writing fill the required information on it. 4. This Booklet contains 150 questions (Q. No. 1-50 are of General Knowledge and 51-150 are of Law). Each question has four alternative answer. Out of the given four answers only one is correct. The candidate has to darken completely only one circle or bubble indicating the correct or the most suitable answer on the Answer-Sheet using Black Ballpoint pen only. (Please do not use Fountain Pen, Gel Pen, Sketch Pen or Pencil.) 5. All questions are compulsory and all questions carry equal marks. Marks will allotted to your as per your correct answer. 6. You have to mark your answer on the Answer-Sheet provided to you separately. You should mark all your answers on the Answer-Sheet only. The answers marked elsewhere, except Answer-Sheet, will not be acceptable. 7. Before writing anything on the Answer-Sheet read carefully the instructions mentioned on it. Fill up the required informations on it before answering. 8. Hand-over the Answer-Sheet to the Invigilator after completion of the test. 9. If you are gone through these instructions, written your Roll Number on this cover page and filled up all the required information on the Answer-Sheet and Working-Sheet, then wait until you are told to open the Test Booklet. DO NOT OPEN THIS TEST BOOKLET UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO. 9. If you are gone through these instructions, written your Roll Number on this cover page and filled up all the required information on the Answer-Sheet and Working-Sheet, then wait until you are told to open the Test Booklet. DO NOT OPEN THIS TEST BOOKLET UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO. Important : Immediately after opening the booklet ensure that the Booklet issued to you have all the pages printed properly, if you find any other deficiency, then you approach the Invigilator and get another Booklet of the same Series. 8. A bare perusal of the first page of the sample booklet of Series ‘A’ would go to show that a candidate was required to mention in the answer-sheet his roll number, Subject, Question Booklet series on the answer-sheet correctly, otherwise the answer-sheet will not be evaluated and the candidate will solely be responsible for the same. 9. Accepted position is that in the original records, in the OMR answer-sheet, question booklet series described by petitioner is ‘D’ and not only this, in front of ‘D’, petitioner has proceeded to bubble also with black ball point pen. Petitioner has been supplied with ‘A’ series booklet, he however in the OMR sheet has proceeded to fill his question series booklet as ‘D’; and not only this, petitioner has proceeded to make bubble mark also in front of ‘D’. The petitioner has not stopped here, even in the attendance list that has been produced before us in original, petitioner has bubbled, Text Book Series ‘D’ with Text Booklet Serial No. 1004041; Answer Sheet Serial No. 1029093. The petitioner has not stopped here, even in the attendance list that has been produced before us in original, petitioner has bubbled, Text Book Series ‘D’ with Text Booklet Serial No. 1004041; Answer Sheet Serial No. 1029093. The instructions for marking answers and filling up OMR sheet are being extracted below: ^^mRrj vafdr djus ds vuqns'k 1- vks0,e0vkj0 mRrj i=d ds lHkh izfof”V;ksa dsoy dkyk cky IokbaV isu ls dh tk;A dkys ds vfrfjDr vU; lHkh jaxks dk iz;ksx oftZr gSA 2- QkmUVsu isu] tsy isu] Ldsp isu vFkok isfUly dk iz;ksx oftZr gSA 3- izR;sd iz'u ds fy, dsoy ,d gh mRrj vafdr fd;k tkuk gSA ;fn vki ,d ls vf/kd mRrj vafdr djrs gS rks vkidk mRrj xyr ekuk tk;sxkA 4- mRrj vafdr djus ds fy, lEcfU/kr ,d gh o`r dks iw.kZr;k xgjk dkyk djsa tsls uhps fn[kk;k x;k gSA Lkgh 5- ,d ckj xksys dks dkys djus ds i'pkr~ mlesa ifjorZu laHko ugh gSA dkys fd;s x;s xksys dks feVk;sa@[kqjpsa ughA 6- viuk mRrj dsoy mRrj iz=d es fufnZ"V LFkku ij gh vafdr djsaA mRrj i=d esa dgha vU;= vadu djus ij mldh x.kuk ugha dh tk;sxhA 7- mRrj i=d ij dPpk dke djuk euk gSA vyx ls ofdZx 'khV izkIr dj mlesa dPpk dke djsaA INSTRUCTIONS FOR MARKING ANSWERS 1. All entries in the OMR answer-sheet are to be made with BLACK BALL POINT PEN only. Use of any colour other than black is not permitted. 2. Marking with fountain pen, gel pen, sketch pen or pencil is not permitted. 3. For every question only one response is to be marked. If you mark more than one response it will be considered as wrong. 4. Completely darken the respective circle for your response as shown below. Correct 5. No alteration of the marking of answer (bubbling) is allowed. Marking once made shall not be erased. Erasing will result to no mark. 6. Mark your response only in the space provided for the purpose. Response marked elsewhere will not be counted. 7. Rough work must not be done on the answer sheet. Obtain separate working sheet and use it for rough work.” 10. Marking once made shall not be erased. Erasing will result to no mark. 6. Mark your response only in the space provided for the purpose. Response marked elsewhere will not be counted. 7. Rough work must not be done on the answer sheet. Obtain separate working sheet and use it for rough work.” 10. The U.P. Public Service Commission, based on the series that has been so mentioned by petitioner on his OMR sheet has evaluated the answer-sheet and as per the series ‘D’, 38 marks have been awarded to the petitioner and petitioner, as already mentioned above, now is before this Court and his virtual prayer is that directives be issued on humanitarian ground for the evaluation of answer-sheet of petitioner with Roll No. 016826 manually and the result in question be modified accordingly. 11. Shri Anil Tiwary, Advocate has very extensively argued before this Court to show and demonstrate as to what is the object of examination and in the said direction, it has been submitted that object of examination is to see that area of competition is widened and not throttled and in view of this, once the purpose of examination is to get best talent, then taking such a narrow view would result in defeating the object of holding of open examination and here accepted position is that humane error has occurred and there are no possibilities of any advantage or benefit being reaped of said humane error by the petitioner and as such, this Court should take a liberal view in the matter. 12. There is no doubt on this facet of the matter that the object of examination is to get the best of talent and on such a proposition there can be hardly any dispute. The judgement that has been cited in the cases of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Singh and others, (1984) 4 SCC 27 ; Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others, (2004) 6 SCC 714 ; Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda and another, (2004) 13 SCC 383 ; Manish Ujwal and others v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and others, (2005) 13 SCC 744 ; Secy. W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das and others, (2007) 8 SCC 242 ; Sahiti and others v. Chancellor, Dr. W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das and others, (2007) 8 SCC 242 ; Sahiti and others v. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and others, (2009) 1 SCC 599 ; Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, (2011) 8 SCC 497 ; Sanchit Bansal and another v. Joint Admission Board and others, (2012) 1 SCC 157 ; Vikas Pratap Singh and others v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2013) 14 SCC 494 , are all in the direction wherein the importance of holding of examination and the object of examination has been considered in reference to the fact as to whether revaluation of answer scripts are permissible or not. Caution has also been given that in such matters Courts should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views where candidate have taken the examination with full awareness of the provisions/instructions meant for curbing malpractices and ensuring fair play. Categorical mention is also there as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to such matters in preference to those formulated by professional man possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day to day working, it would be wholly wrong for the Court to make pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problem, isolated from actual realities and gross root problems involved in the working of system. Courts have been asked, as far as possible, to avoid any decision/interpretation that would render the system unworkable in practice. Even in matter, where the procedure is not accurate/efficient, mention has been made that there is no ground for the Courts to interfere unless there are mala fides/arbitrariness or violation of law. 13. This Court is not at all disputing the proposition of law that has been mentioned therein that the object of examination undoubtedly is to see and ensure that the best of the candidate is there on being selected. The larger issue that is engaging the attention of this Court is as to whether mistake in question that has admittedly occurred, same is liable to be condoned or not and what is the purpose and objective of such instructions that has been issued by U.P. Public Service Commission. The larger issue that is engaging the attention of this Court is as to whether mistake in question that has admittedly occurred, same is liable to be condoned or not and what is the purpose and objective of such instructions that has been issued by U.P. Public Service Commission. Such an issue has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B.M. Vijaya Shankar, (1992) 2 SCC 206 , wherein a categorical view has been taken that a candidate should abide by such instructions and the object of instructions is to minimise any possibility of chance of any abuse and larger public interest demands insistence of observance of instruction rather than its breach. Relevant extract of the said order is being quoted below: “Such instructions are issued to ensure fairness in the examination. In the fast deteriorating standards of honesty and morality in the society the insistence by the Commission that no attempt should be made of identification of the candidate by writing his roll number anywhere is in the larger public interest. It is well known that the first page of the answer book on which roll number is written is removed and a fictitious code number is provided to rule out any effort of any approach to the examiner. Not that a candidate who has written his roll number would have approached the examiner. He may have committed a bona fide mistake. But that is not material. What was attempted to be achieved by the instruction was to minimise any possibility or chance of any abuse. Larger public interest demands of observance of instruction rather than its breach. Competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the Commission for public service in strict secrecy to get the best brain. Public interest requires no compromise on it. Any violation of it should be visited strictly. Absence of any expectation of hearing in matters which do not affect any interest and call for immediate action, such as the present one, where it would have delayed declaration of list of other candidates which would have been more unfair and unjust are rare but well recognised exceptions to the rule of natural justice. Absence of any expectation of hearing in matters which do not affect any interest and call for immediate action, such as the present one, where it would have delayed declaration of list of other candidates which would have been more unfair and unjust are rare but well recognised exceptions to the rule of natural justice. It cannot be equated with where a student is found copying in the examination or an inference arises against him for copying due to similarity in answers of number of other candidates or he is charged with misconduct or misbehavior. Direction not to write roll number was clear and explicit. It was printed on the first page of every answer book. Once it was violated the issue of bona fide and honest mistake did not arise. Its consequences, even, if not provided did not make any difference in law. The action could not be characterised as arbitrary. It was not denial of equal opportunity. The reverse may be true. The tribunal appears to have been swayed by principles applied by this Court where an examinee is found copying or using unfair means in the examination. But in doing so the tribunal ignored a vital distinction that there may be cases where the right of hearing may be excluded by the very nature of the power or absence of any expectation that the hearing shall be afforded. Rule of hearing has been construed strictly in academic disciplines. It should be construed more strictly in such cases where an examinee is competing for Civil Service post. The very nature of the competition requires that it should be fair, above board and must infuse confidence. If this is ignored then, as stated earlier, it is not only against public interest but it also erodes the social sense of equality. The tribunal in issuing directions approached the matter technically and has attempted to make out much where it would have been better part of discretion to refuse to interfere. The tribunal completely misdirected itself in this regard. In our opinion its order cannot be maintained.” The said judgement in question has been followed by Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission v. P.S. Ramakrishna, (1996) 2 SCC 519 . The tribunal completely misdirected itself in this regard. In our opinion its order cannot be maintained.” The said judgement in question has been followed by Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission v. P.S. Ramakrishna, (1996) 2 SCC 519 . Apex Court once again in the case of Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan and others, 2011 LawSuit(SC) 1055, relied upon the judgement of Karnataka Public Service Commission (Supra) by taking the view that when there are instructions in question, then the said instructions have to be complied with in its word and spirit and no relaxation can be accorded until and unless there exists a provision. 14. Apex Court once again in the case of Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission v. A.B. Natrajan and others, (2014) 14 SCC 95 , has clearly mentioned that such instructions are binding and has to be adhered to. It has also been mentioned that entire object behind giving code number etc. would be frustrated if all these things are permitted or tolerated. Relevant extract of the said judgement is being quoted below: “13. It is an admitted fact that serious irregularities had been committed by the candidates in their answer books. If one looks at the instructions, which had been given to the candidates for writing the answer books, it is clear that they had been informed in unequivocal terms that they had to use only blue, blue-black or black ink and they were supposed to use only fountain pen, steel pen or ballpoint pen. In spite of the said instructions, several candidates had used sketch pens, pencils and pens or pencils with different colours. Use of different colours or pencil could have given some indication to the examiner about the identity of the candidate. These facts clearly show that either the candidates were absolutely careless or they wanted to give some indication with regard to themselves to the examiner. If a candidate writes his answer book giving some indication with regard to himself with the help of a different ink or pencil - other than the prescribed writing instrument and the colour of ink, one can definitely presume that the candidate did not act in a bona fide manner. 14. There was a specific direction that the candidates had to start writing the answer books from the first page and no page should be left blank. 14. There was a specific direction that the candidates had to start writing the answer books from the first page and no page should be left blank. In spite of the said clear instruction, several candidates kept several pages blank and what is most astonishing is that some of the candidates, after keeping the entire page blank i.e. without answering the question had written some irrelevant words or names. As for example, in one case on the entire page ‘MANI’ was written. This is nothing but some indication to the examiner, which is definitely not permitted. Many of the candidates had given some indication with regard to some religion by writing the words or signs connected with a particular religion. A candidate is not supposed to give his identity or any indication with regard to himself in the answer books. If he does so, he is violating the instructions given to him which would amount to nothing but misconduct. 16. In all competitive examinations, an effort is always made to see that the answer books are examined impartially and without any bias. An effort is always made to see that identity of the candidate is not revealed to the person examining the answer books so as to see that the identity i.e. the name or roll number of the candidate is not revealed. A code number is given to each answer book. The roll number given to the candidate is normally replaced by another number so that even the examiner may not know the correct roll number of the candidate. This is done so as to remove the possibility of giving any indication by anyone to the examiner about the identity of the candidate. Upon completion of the examination work, original roll number of the candidate is put on the answer book or on the sheet prepared for the purpose of assigning marks, but in any case, the examiners are not permitted to know anything about the candidate or his identity. If the candidates start giving indications with regard to themselves by writing their name or some code word or some indication with an intention to convey the same to an examiner, so that he may have some undue favour, is a thing which is not approved. If such an attempt is permitted to be made, sanctity of the examination work would not be maintained. If such an attempt is permitted to be made, sanctity of the examination work would not be maintained. The entire object behind giving code number etc. would be frustrated if all these things are permitted or tolerated. 18. Normally, a straightforward candidate, who does not want to indulge in any malpractice, would never make any effort to reveal his identity or make any special marking in his answer book. The purpose behind doing something abnormal or something which is not permitted, can be said to be an indication to the examiner about the identity of the candidate. Such an action on the part of the candidate cannot be tolerated if one wants clean, fair and transparent process of selection. 19. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that there were serious violations of the instructions given to the candidates while answering the questions. Although all these details were placed before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge did not give importance to these irregularities and dismissed the petitions, but when the appeals were filed, in our opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court rightly understood the importance of such irregularities and allowed the appeals by setting aside the selection of the candidates who had committed such irregularities while writing their answer books. We are of the view that if such a strict view is not taken by a constitutional body which has been entrusted with the work of selecting best candidates, the entire purpose behind having the Commission or any other such body for examining merit of candidates would be frustrated. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellate Court was absolutely justified in allowing the appeals and by holding that all those candidates who had committed material irregularities could not be declared selected. 20. Several allegations had been made with regard to the procedural aspect. It had been submitted that all the selected candidates had not been joined as respondents and even the State of Tamil Nadu had not been joined as a respondent initially. Initially only one petition had been filed when the result had not been declared and it was also not possible for the petitioners to join all selected candidates. Subsequently, an advertisement had been given in the newspapers giving indication about the pendency of the petition so as to enable the selected candidates to appear before the Court. Initially only one petition had been filed when the result had not been declared and it was also not possible for the petitioners to join all selected candidates. Subsequently, an advertisement had been given in the newspapers giving indication about the pendency of the petition so as to enable the selected candidates to appear before the Court. Moreover, the appointment letters gave an indication of the fact that a litigation challenging their appointment was pending in the High Court. In spite of the aforesaid fact being stated in the appointment order and the advertisement, if selected candidates did not bother to appear before the Court, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the selected candidates were not given an opportunity to represent their case. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the allegations with regard to non-joinder of selected candidates or even the State of Tamil Nadu. 21. The candidates who had applied for Class-I post, if selected, were to be Class-I Officers of the State of Tamil Nadu. Not following the instructions given to them while appearing in the examination, which had been conducted for their selection, would either mean that they were so careless that they did not read or bother about the instructions to be followed or they wanted to give some indication to the examiner about their identity. In either case, such a candidate cannot be selected. A candidate, who is so careless that he does not bother about his own interest, cannot be expected to become a good officer. Interest of the candidate is to get through the examination and for that purpose he has to follow the instructions. By not following the instructions, he does not take care of his own interest. So, if he has written the answer books carelessly without bothering about the instructions given to him, he is a careless person who must not be appointed as an officer and if he has done it deliberately, then also he should not be appointed as an officer because one who plans such illegalities even before joining his service, cannot be expected to become a fair and straightforward officer. So, in either case, such a candidate cannot be selected for appointment as an officer and that too a Class-I Officer of any State.” 15. So, in either case, such a candidate cannot be selected for appointment as an officer and that too a Class-I Officer of any State.” 15. Consistent view of Apex Court has been that such instructions have binding effect and its breach should not be subscribed and that too at the instance of such candidate who have not cared to read the instructions and followed the same. 16. There are various judgements of our Court as well as other High Courts wherein from the perspective and point of view of humane error, the issue has been looked into and answered. Said judgements are in the cases of Ajay Kumar v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another, 2000 (3) AWC 1946 ; Kavita Rani v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (8) ADJ 272 ; Km. Archana Rastogi v. State of U.P and others, 2012 (3) ADJ 219 ; Subhanta Devi v. State of Rajasthan through its Director General of Police, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11269 of 2011 decided on 3rd May, 2014; Smt. Mahima Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (10) ADJ 512 ; Sharmila Kumar v. The Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer and another, Civil Writ Petition No. 15922 of 2011 decided on 7th December, 2011; Neetu Singh v. State of Rajasthan, LAW S (RAJ)-2012-9-147; Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture Unversity, Bikaner and another v. Hari Singh and others, Civil Special Appeal No. 829 of 2013 decided on 26th March, 2014; Namita Chandrahas Gupta v. Gujrat National Law University, Special Civil Application No. 8168 of 2014 decided on 24.6.2014, Gujarat National Law University v. Namita Chandrahas Gupta, Letters Patent Appeal No. 782 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 8168 of 2014 decided on 3.7.2014 17. We with respect cannot subscribe to the said view, for the reason that on the subject-matter, as already extracted above, the judgement of the Apex Court has been holding the field wherein clear cut mention has been made that such instructions are binding and in each of the case, with its peculiar characters, the discretion has been exercised in favour of petitioner. Much capital has been sought to be made on the strength of judgement in the case of Namita Chandrahas Gupta v. Gujrat National Law University, Special Civil Application No. 8168 of 2014 decided on 24.6.2014, for intervening in the matter. Much capital has been sought to be made on the strength of judgement in the case of Namita Chandrahas Gupta v. Gujrat National Law University, Special Civil Application No. 8168 of 2014 decided on 24.6.2014, for intervening in the matter. We would make mention that such order of learned Single Judge, has been subjected to Intra Court Appeal. The Appellate Bench has observed as follows: “Though we have in exercise of judicial discretion remedied the mistake committed by student, such mistake cannot be treated lightly”. 18. Gujrat High Court has been dealing with students, and in the said background Division Bench took liberal view of the matter while affirming the order of Single Judge but opened its heart by mentioning that mistake has been remedied by judicial discretion and lastly it has been clarified that such mistakes should be not taken lightly. Petitioner, in pith and substance, is requesting that such mistake should be taken lightly. Said judgement, on its face value, is not a binding precedent nor it has any persuasive value in the facts of the case. Once on the same subject-matter, there is declared principle by the Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission (Supra), consistently followed in the case of Bedanga Talukdar (Supra); Secretary Tamilnadu Public Service Commission (Supra) then judicial discipline prompts us to follow the principle laid by Apex Court, instead of proceeding on misplaced sympathy. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arti Varma v. State of U.P., 2014 (4) AWC 3358, following the reasoning that each candidate necessarily must bear the consequence of his failure to fill the application form correctly. Interference in such matter is clearly not warranted in such matters as it creates grave uncertainty since the selection process cannot be finally completed. View point of co-ordinate Bench of our Court as noted above is on the same principle that has been declared by Apex Court, that said instructions are binding and consequences will have to follow on account of breach of instructions. There is no occasion or reason for us to take a different or contrary view. 19. Humane error on one hand, for protecting individual interest vis-a-vis public interest i.e. for ensuring free/fair/transparent examination is an issue to be dealt with. 20. There is no occasion or reason for us to take a different or contrary view. 19. Humane error on one hand, for protecting individual interest vis-a-vis public interest i.e. for ensuring free/fair/transparent examination is an issue to be dealt with. 20. To see and ensure that identity of candidate is not reflected from the Answer Sheet and there is zero humane interference, important instructions have been issued with clear cut mention that in case there is an error, following consequences would ensue. Once instructions in question are coupled with consequences, then such instructions necessarily will have to be accepted as of being mandatory in character. 21. Instructions in public examination are tool in the direction of free, fair and transparent examination and once U.P. Public Service Commission has proceeded to issue instructions and the instructions in question are clear and categorical that wrong code should not be filled, failing which the answer-sheet in question should not be evaluated, then the petitioner has to blame himself for the same. 22. Petitioner is aspiring to become a Assistant Prosecution Officer. Petitioner, in the present case, in the OMR sheet has not only mentioned the wrong series but even at the point of time when bubbling has been done, option D has been mentioned. Even in the attendance-sheet, similar is the situation. Whenever there is a conflict in between private interest and public interest, private interest will always have to give way to public interest i.e. of ensuring free/fair/transparent examination with zero humane instructions. Even in cases of humane error, once instruction has been breached, the consequences provided for has to follow, as candidate is self responsible for the situation and uncertainty should not be attached to the selection process. 23. We do not know as to whether it is a deliberate error or it is an inadvertent humane error, inasmuch as, petitioner is a resident of Allahabad and he has proceeded to fill up his examination form from Agra. We do not at all know of the design of the petitioner as to why he has choosen to fill his centre as Agra and why he has been so careless and negligent in filling his OMR sheet that could easily disclose his identity. 24. We do not at all know of the design of the petitioner as to why he has choosen to fill his centre as Agra and why he has been so careless and negligent in filling his OMR sheet that could easily disclose his identity. 24. Once such is the factual situation and the law on the subject is clear that instructions in question have to be interpreted in the context of object for which it has been framed and here, in this era of computerization, once petitioner has proceeded not to comply with the instructions and has committed error not at one place but at two places in the OMR sheet and same mistake has been repeated in attendance-sheet, then he has to blame himself and same cannot be dubbed as humane error. 25. Consequently, in the facts of the case, in case any directive is given to U.P. Public Service Commission to undertake such an exercise as has been prayed by the petitioner, then it would not only open flood gate, same would make way for humane intervention and give chance of manipulation and manoeuvring in the fool proof scheme prepared by U.P. Public Service Commission and any interference by us would tantamount to creating a fresh forum i.e. not provided for. 26. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. ——————