JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumer, J. This L. P. appeal is preferred by the appellants challenging the order of the Writ Court made in OWP No. 436/2015 dated 21-9-2015, giving directions to evaluate the OMR answer sheet of Paper-II of the respondent No. 1 while taking the Question Booklet Series 'B' instead of 'A' and to withdraw the merit of the respondent No. 1 and based on which consider her for selection for admission to the PG course within a period of 2 weeks. 2. During the pendency of this appeal an interim direction was issued by the Division bench on 12-10-2015 directing the appellants to evaluate the paper of the respondent No. 1 according to the case Book let Series 'B' and produce the result before the Court is a sealed cover. Against the said interim order passed in MP No. 01/2015 (LPAOW No. 45/2015) dated 12-10-2015, Special Leave to Appeal (c) Nos. 32367-32369 of 2015 was preferred and by interim order dated 27-11-2015, the order of this Court was stayed. During the pendency of the said SLP as well as this L. P. Appeal the 1st respondent appeared in the entrance examination for selection to PG Diploma course for the year 2016 and she was selected and admitted, therefore, Civil Appeal Nos. 167-69 of 2017 was allowed by setting aside the order dated 12-10-2015 and in the said order it is recorded that learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent want to take some action against the appellants in respect of the year 2015 and for the said request Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed that ' we make no observations or comment in this regard'. 3. In the light of the said submission made before Hon'ble the Supreme Court the learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that even though the ultimate claim for admission to PG Degree course for the year 2015 has become infructuous, the 1st respondent wants to vindicate her right and if she establishes the negligence of the Invigilator of the Examination Hall and Deputy Superintendent of the Examination Centre, compensation is payable by the appellants for the denial of admission. In such circumstances the appellants were allowed to argue the appeal on the basis of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1. 4. In such circumstances the appellants were allowed to argue the appeal on the basis of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1. 4. It was the case of the 1st respondent before the Writ Court that she applied for admission to PG Degree course pursuant to the advertisement notice issued by the BOPEE dated 8-1-2015 and appeared in the entrance examination held on 15-3-2015. In the second session the 1st respondent was provided Question Booklet Series 'B' bearing Question Booklet No. 520198 and while filling the OMR answer sheet the 1st respondent by oversight and inadvertence, instead of mentioning Series 'B', mentioned 'A' and proceeded to solve the questions on the OMR answer sheet. The result of the entrance examination was declared on 2-4-2015 and 1st respondent was awarded 93 marks in paper-I and in paper-II she was awarded only 34 marks as her Booklet Series was checked/valued based on the key answers of Question Booklet Series 'A'. According to her she could have been awarded 88 marks in paper-II if Question Booklet series 'B' was mentioned by her. She made request for treating her Question Booklet Series as ' B' which request having not been entertained, writ petition was filed by accepting her fault of not writing correct series in the Booklet i.e. 'B'. 5. The principle contention of the 1st respondent before the Writ Court was that though there was an inadvertent mistake on her part, the Invigilator and Deputy Superintendent have also erred in checking the said mistake while receiving the OMR answer sheet. According to the 1st respondent, in the note appended at the bottom of the OMR answer sheet, it is mentioned that 'Invigilator and Deputy Superintendent to ensure that the candidate has given correct information regarding roll number, No. of questions attempted, booklet No. and series'. According to the 1st respondent the Invigilator and Deputy Superintendent failed to adhere to the directions issued to them while collecting her OMR answer sheet and if they ensured the correct entry and pointed the mistake committed by her and the same could have been corrected and they having not pointed out the mistake committed by the 1st respondent remained. According to the 1st respondent the Invigilator and Deputy Superintendent failed to adhere to the directions issued to them while collecting her OMR answer sheet and if they ensured the correct entry and pointed the mistake committed by her and the same could have been corrected and they having not pointed out the mistake committed by the 1st respondent remained. Thus there is mistake of both sides and hence respondent No. 1 is entitled to evaluation of her OMR as per Question Booklet Series 'B' and the learned single Judge has rightly appreciated the said fact and allowed the writ petition. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the mistake is on the part of the 1st respondent in writing the correct Booklet Series and, as such, no liability can be fastened on the part of the Invigilator of the Examination Hall and Deputy Superintendent of the Examination Centre. 7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent argued that the 1st respondent though committed a mistake, the Invigilator of the Examination Hall and Deputy Superintendent of the Examination Centre have failed to ensure entry of correct Booklet Series at the time of collecting the OMR answer sheet, which resulted in securing 34 marks instead of 88 marks in Paper-II. Thus the appellants are bound to pay compensation and costs to the 1st respondent. 8. We have gone through the order of the Writ Court, general instructions given to the candidates as well as to the Invigilator and Deputy Superintendent and the fact of admission secured by the 1st respondent in the year 2016. 9. The only point arises for consideration is whether the learned senior counsel appearing for the 1st respondent is justified in claiming compensation for the reason that the 1st respondent could not get admission in P.G. Medical Course 2015 and is there any negligence on the part of the Invigilator of the Examination Hall and Deputy Superintendent of the Examination Centre while collecting the OMR answer sheet of Paper-II. 10. For ascertaining the said issue it is just and proper to note down the instructions given in the OMR answer sheet. In the instructions to the candidates it is mentioned in serial No. 7 that, 'Mark your Question Booklet Number and Question Booklet Series correctly'. 10. For ascertaining the said issue it is just and proper to note down the instructions given in the OMR answer sheet. In the instructions to the candidates it is mentioned in serial No. 7 that, 'Mark your Question Booklet Number and Question Booklet Series correctly'. In serial No. 10 it is stated that,' In case you do not follow the above instructions, your Answer Sheet is likely to be rejected whenever detected'. Below the signature to be affixed by the Deputy Superintendent separate instructions are given to the Invigilator and Deputy Superintendent. It reads thus :- 'Invigilator and Deputy Superintendent to ensure that the candidate has given correct information regarding Roll Number, No. of Questions Attempted, Booklet No. and Series.' In the instructions it is further stated that no complaint shall be entertained after the Entrance Test is over. 11. The 1st respondent has admitted the error committed by her. The Invigilator of the Examination Hall and Deputy Superintendent of the Examination Centre also failed to in their duty to point out the mistake while collecting the OMR answer sheet. The instructions given to the Invigilator of the Examination Hall and Deputy Superintendent of the Examination Centre, above mentioned, mandates to ensure the entry of correct Roll Number, Number of Questions Attempted, Booklet number and Booklet Series. The word 'ensure-is unanimous to 'assure-, 'secure-, 'make safe-, 'watch over-, 'look after-, 'take care-, 'make sure- , check, verify etc. Thus ensuring the entry of correct Booklet Number and Series is a paramount duty on the part of the Invigilator of the Examination Hall and Deputy Superintendent of the Examination Centre where the 1st respondent appeared for Paper-II. The instructions to the candidates clearly states that no complaint shall be entertained after the Entrance Test is over, which means no re-checking or re-evaluation or re-assessment is permissible. While that being the instructions, it is all the more necessary on the part of the candidate, the Invigilator of the Examination Hall and the Deputy Superintendent of the Examination Centre to be careful while filling up the Booklet number and Series, as well as while receiving the OMR Answer Sheet after the examination is over. Thus the culpable negligence on the part of the Invigilator of the Examination Hall and Deputy Superintendent of the Examination Centre is fully proved. 12. Thus the culpable negligence on the part of the Invigilator of the Examination Hall and Deputy Superintendent of the Examination Centre is fully proved. 12. It is well settled proposition of law that instructions contained in the OMR Answer Sheet to candidate as well as Invigilator and Deputy Superintendent are binding on both the parties. Even though the initial mistake is on the part of the 1st respondent, not pointing the same to the 1st respondent at the time of collecting the OMR Answer Sheet by the Invigilator and Deputy Superintendent and requesting the 1st respondent to correct the same, has caused this kind of situation. Hence we are inclined to observe that the appellants shall ensure that instructions are fully observed not only by the candidates but also the invigilators and Deputy Superintendents who are supervising the Examination Centres. 13. It is relevant to note at this juncture that the Invigilator as well as the Deputy Superintendent were selected to conduct the examination by the BOPEE. Thus they are the agents of BOPEE and if any culpable mistake or omission is committed by the agents, due to which any person is put to inconvenience/loss, the BOPEE is liable to pay compensation on the principle of vicarious liability, of course it is open to the BOPEE to proceed against the said invigilator as well as the Deputy Superintendent for their dereliction of duty and recover the amount of compensation ordered to be paid to the 1st respondent. 14. The 1st respondent is a meritorious candidate who got admission to PG Degree course in the year 2016. By virtue of inadvertent error committed by her as well as the negligence on the part of the Invigilator of the Examination Hall and Deputy Superintendent of the Examination Centre she lost her chance to get admission to PG degree course in the year 2015. Thus we can safely hold that the quantum of compensation at Rs. 1 lac can be fixed. The negligence being on the part of the 1st respondent also, she can get 50% of the amount of compensation determined. Thus this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met by awarding a sum of Rs. Thus we can safely hold that the quantum of compensation at Rs. 1 lac can be fixed. The negligence being on the part of the 1st respondent also, she can get 50% of the amount of compensation determined. Thus this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met by awarding a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent for the negligence committed by the Invigilator of the Examination Hall and Deputy Superintendent of the Examination Centre in not ensuring the fact that 1st respondent has wrongly mentioned Question Booklet Series 'A' instead of 'B'. 15. As the mistake is on the part of the 1st respondent as well as the culpable negligence on the part of the Invigilator of the Examination Hall and Deputy Superintendent of the Examination Centre, we quantify the cost of litigation as Rs. 25,000/-, of which the 1st respondent is entitled to get 50% only i.e. Rs. 12,500/-, which shall be paid by the BOPEE. The said compensation as well as the costs awarded amounting to Rs. 62,500/- shall be paid to the 1st respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 16. The L.P. appeal is disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.