Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 109 (ALL)

Vinay Kumar v. State of U. P.

2022-01-27

PRAKASH PADIA, RAJESH BINDAL

body2022
JUDGMENT : Prakash Padia, J. The order dated December 17, 2021 passed by the Single Judge has been challenged by filing present intra Court appeal. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in a nutshell are that the writ-petitioner had preferred the writ petition in question stating therein that being fully eligible and qualified, he applied for vacancies advertised by the respondents-Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Sewa Chayan Board, Prayagraj (for short 'the Board') for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher being advertisement No. 01/2021 in the month of March, 2021. The appellant filled his application form in respect of the vacancies in the subject of Social Science under O.B.C. category. Result of the aforesaid examination was declared on October 26, 2021 wherein the cut off mark of the petitioner's category was 462.82500. The name of the appellant was not included in the select list while he had answered 87 questions correctly and got 350.804 marks, which are above than the cut off declared by the respondents. 3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, a representation was submitted by the appellant but since no response was given, the petitioner-appellant preferred the writ petition. When the writ petition was taken up on November 26, 2021 the following order was passed : ''According to the petitioner, he had appeared in T.G.T. examination pursuant to advertisement No. 1 of 2021.According to final key answer published by the respondents, the petitioner would secure 350.804 marks which is more than the cut off marks in OBC category. Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted ten days time to seek instructions in the matter and apprise the Court as to why the result of the petitioner has not been declared. Put up as fresh on 17.12.2021.'' 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid, counsel for the respondent-board placed instructions before the learned Single Judge alongwith the photocopy of the OMR sheet of the writ-petitioner/appellant. The writ-petitioner/appellant had to answer only two subjects, namely History and Civics, whereas besides the said two subjects he had also answered the question of Economics, due to which OMR Sheet of the writ-petitioner/appellant could not be evaluated. 5. Taking into consideration the instructions alongwith OMR Sheet placed before the learned Single Judge, he was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the writ-petitioner/appellant has preferred the present appeal. 7. 5. Taking into consideration the instructions alongwith OMR Sheet placed before the learned Single Judge, he was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, the writ-petitioner/appellant has preferred the present appeal. 7. It is argued by the counsel for the appellant that the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated December 17, 2021 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is further argued that the appellant had attempted only two subjects, i.e., History and Civics, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit, but this fact has not been considered by the learned Single Judge and merely relying upon the ex-parte averments of the respondents, the writ petition filed by the writ-petitioner/appellant was dismissed. It is further argued that though on the basis of the instructions placed by the respondents counsel before the learned Single Judge, the writ petition was dismissed but no liberty was given to the counsel for the appellant to meet the above version of the respondents. It is further argued that no opportunity of hearing was given to the counsel for the writ-petitioner/appellant to reply the incorrect version of the respondent. 8. On the other hand, it is argued by Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Board that in the OMR Sheet of the writ-petitioner/appellant apart from the subjects namely History and Civics, he had also answered the question of Economics, due to which OMR Sheet of the writ-petitioner/appellant could not be evaluated. It is further argued by him that as per Clause-2 of the instructions, condition Nos. 6, 9 and 12 of the advertisement have not been followed by the writ-petitioner/appellant, due to which his OMR Sheet was not evaluated. 9. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that there were clear instructions that if any of the fields, including the roll number, is incorrectly filled then the OMR sheet would not be evaluated. He submits that OMR sheets have been universally adopted by examining bodies that conduct public examinations at a large-scale with a view to expedite the process of evaluation. Data, including answers rendered by darkening the circles or bubbles appearing on an OMR sheet is scanned by scanners and the scanned data is evaluated with the aid of software. In case, there is mistake or mismatch of the data furnished, the software rejects the OMR sheet. Data, including answers rendered by darkening the circles or bubbles appearing on an OMR sheet is scanned by scanners and the scanned data is evaluated with the aid of software. In case, there is mistake or mismatch of the data furnished, the software rejects the OMR sheet. Therefore, a candidate has to take complete care not only in reading the instructions, but also in following them because it is not feasible for an examining body in an examination of such magnitude to manually evaluate each answer sheet. He submitted that where mistakes occur in filling of OMR sheets, the mistakes are not condonable. 10. Copy of the instructions alongwith the photocopy of OMR Sheet of the writ-petitioner/appellant were placed before us by the counsel for the respondent-board. 11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. On perusal of photocopy of OMR Sheet of writ-petitioner/appellant, it is clear that apart from two subjects namely History and Civics, the writ-petitioner/appellant has answered question No. 2 of 3rd subject namely Economics. Thus the writ-petitioner has attempted/answered 3 subjects instead of 2 subjects. As per instructions provided by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Board, on OMR sheet specific instructions has been mentioned that incomplete or wrongly filed up OMR Sheet will not be accepted. The instructions No. 6, 9 and 12 of OMR sheet are as under : ^^6- mŸkj i=d esa fn;s x;s LFkku dks gh Hkjs vU;= dksbZ fpag u yxk;sA 9- mŸkj i=d dks bysDVªksfuDl ek/;e ls lalkf/kr fd;k tk,xkA viw.kZ vFkok xyr rjhds ls Hkjk x;k mŸkj i=d vekU; gksxk vkSj bldk mŸkjnkf;ROk iw.kZr;k vH;FkhZ dk gksxkA 12- bl mŸkj i=d ij mfpr LFkku ds vfrfjDr dqN u fy[ks vU;Fkk mŸkj i=d vekU; dj fn;k tk;sxkA^^ 13. From the above instructions, it is more than clear that the candidates were repeatedly forewarned about taking care while filling up the OMR answer sheet and indicating their particulars. The reasons are not far to understand, inasmuch as, the OMR answer sheets are electronically checked for the purpose of ensuring minimum human intervention so as to ensure secrecy and credibility of the entire examination process. The reasons are not far to understand, inasmuch as, the OMR answer sheets are electronically checked for the purpose of ensuring minimum human intervention so as to ensure secrecy and credibility of the entire examination process. When the OMR answer sheets are evaluated electronically, any mistake committed by the candidate would be detected and its treatment is electronically fed, i.e., in case of any discrepancy in the particulars of the candidates indicated in the OMR answer sheet, same are not to be evaluated. 14. The plea raised that the mistake committed by the appellant was minor and technical, which on the face of it may appear to be so, however, in case the correction of said mistake is permitted, the same would surely compromise the secrecy of the OMR answer sheet and the evaluation process, inasmuch as, on a request being made to permit correction, the OMR answer sheet would have to be taken out from the entire lot, the same would be corrected, resulting in identification of the OMR answer sheet with respect to a particular candidate and a possibility of further tinkering with the OMR answer sheet cannot be ruled out. 15. In the present case, the appellant may be one candidate, however, in a given examination there may be several such candidates, who may claim to have committed some mistakes in indicating the particulars and if it is held as a matter of principle that such mistakes in OMR sheets must be permitted to be corrected, the same would lead to chaos, inasmuch as, all such candidates then would be required to be permitted to make corrections, exposing the entire lot of OMR answer sheets, which consequence cannot be permitted. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court way back in the year 1992 in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission and others v. B.M. Vijaya Shankar and others, AIR 1992 SC 952 , held that the Competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the Commission for public service in strict secrecy to get the best brain and that the instructions contained in the answer-sheet should be complied with in their letter and spirit. The relevant portion of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission (Supra), is reproduced below : ''Competitive examinations are required to be conducted by the Commission for public service in strict secrecy to get the best brain. The relevant portion of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission (Supra), is reproduced below : ''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. 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.'' 17. The sanctity of the instructions issued for the conduct of examination and consequence of their violation has been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and others v. G.Hemalathaa and another, 2019 SCC online SC 1113, wherein, it was inter alia laid down as under: ''7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent. The Instructions issued by the Commission are mandatory, having the force of law and they have to be strictly complied with. Strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the Instructions is of paramount importance. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission. 8. The High Court after summoning and perusing the answer sheet of the Respondent was convinced that there was infraction of the Instructions. However, the High Court granted the relief to the Respondent on a sympathetic consideration on humanitarian ground. The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 the Constitution cannot modify/relax the Instructions issued by the Commission. 8. The High Court after summoning and perusing the answer sheet of the Respondent was convinced that there was infraction of the Instructions. However, the High Court granted the relief to the Respondent on a sympathetic consideration on humanitarian ground. The judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent in Taherakhatoon (D) By LRs v. Salambin Mohammad and Chandra Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan and another in support of her arguments that we should not entertain this appeal in the absence of any substantial questions of law are not applicable to the facts of this case. 9. In spite of the finding that there was no adherence to the Instructions, the High Court granted the relief, ignoring the mandatory nature of the Instructions. It cannot be said that such exercise of discretion should be affirmed by us, especially when such direction is in the teeth of the Instructions which are binding on the candidates taking the examinations. 10. In her persuasive appeal, Ms. Mohana sought to persuade us to dismiss the appeal which would enable the Respondent to compete in the selection to the post of Civil Judge. It is a well-known adage that, hard cases make bad law. In Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 721 , Venkataramiah, J., held that: ''13.... exercise of such power of moderation is likely to create a feeling of distrust in the process of selection to public appointments which is intended to be fair and impartial. It may also result in the violation of the principle of equality and may lead to arbitrariness. The cases pointed out by the High Court are no doubt hard cases, but hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law. In the circumstances, we lean in favour of a strict construction of the Rules and hold that the High Court had no such power under the Rules.'' 11. Roberts, CJ. in Caperton v. A.T. Massey [556 U.S. 868 (2009)] held that: ''Extreme cases often test the bounds of established legal principles. There is a cost to (9 of 14) [CW-12323/2020] yielding to the desire to correct the extreme case, rather than adhering to the legal principle. Roberts, CJ. in Caperton v. A.T. Massey [556 U.S. 868 (2009)] held that: ''Extreme cases often test the bounds of established legal principles. There is a cost to (9 of 14) [CW-12323/2020] yielding to the desire to correct the extreme case, rather than adhering to the legal principle. That cost has been demonstrated so often that it is captured in a legal aphorism: ''Hard cases make bad law.'' 12. After giving a thoughtful consideration, we are afraid that we cannot approve the judgment of the High Court as any order in favour of the candidate who has violated the mandatory Instructions would be laying down bad law. The other submission made by Ms. Mohana that an order can be passed by us under Article 142 of the Constitution which shall not be treated as a precedent also does not appeal to us. 13. In view of the aforementioned, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.'' 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that the instructions issued are mandatory and have to be strictly complied with, as strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the instructions is of paramount importance. Reference was also made to the well known adage that 'hard cases make bad law' and that any order in favour of the candidate, who has violated the mandatory instructions would be laying down bad law. 19. The above emphasis laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for strict adherence to the instructions clearly applies to the present case as well. 20. Apart from the same a clarification was issued by the Government on March 5, 2021 with reference to the recruitment process. It was mentioned therein that in case any discrepancy is found in the on-line application, the candidature is liable to be rejected. The aforesaid clarification was subject-matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 322 of 2021 (Jyoti Yadav and another v. State of U.P. and others), whereby bunch of petitions were dismissed vide order dated April 8, 2021. The clarification dated March 5, 2021 was upheld. It is observed in the aforesaid order that for the mistakes committed by individual candidates, the entire process of selection may not be delayed and put to prejudice. The norms prescribed to have definiteness in the process cannot be held to be arbitrary or irrational. The clarification dated March 5, 2021 was upheld. It is observed in the aforesaid order that for the mistakes committed by individual candidates, the entire process of selection may not be delayed and put to prejudice. The norms prescribed to have definiteness in the process cannot be held to be arbitrary or irrational. Paragraph 15 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below : ''If, at every juncture, any mistakes by the candidates were to be addressed and considered at individual level, the entire process of selection may stand delayed and put to prejudice. In order to have definiteness in the matter, certain norms had to be prescribed and prescription of such stipulations cannot be termed to be arbitrary or irrational. Every candidate was put to notice twice over, by the Guidelines and the Advertisement.'' 21. This issue has also been examined by the Courts time and again. 22. In Special Appeal No. 834 of 2013 (Ram Manohar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others) decided on May 30, 2013, the Division Bench of this Court observed as follows : ''We are not inclined to interfere in this special appeal because interference in such matters would result in thoroughly incompetent or utterly negligent persons becoming teachers and spoiling the future of the children whom they will teach. If prospective teacher cannot even correctly fill up the simple on line application form for his employment, it is obvious what he is going to teach if appointed. There are certain decisions cited on this issue. But none of them deal with this aspect whether under the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India such incompetent persons should be allowed to play with the future of the next generation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the petitioner/appellant should wait till he attains sufficient maturity and learns to be more careful in filling up the applications for jobs. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.'' 23. In Arti Verma v. State of U.P. and others 2014 ADJ Online 0138, the Division Bench of this Court observed as follows : ''The appellant made an on-line application for engagement as Shiksha Anudeshak (Arts) for 2012-13 on a contract basis. In the application, the appellant claimed to have belonged to the Freedom Fighters' category, which was admittedly not the category to which the appellant could have claimed. In the application, the appellant claimed to have belonged to the Freedom Fighters' category, which was admittedly not the category to which the appellant could have claimed. The name of the appellant was shown in the select list of candidates belonging to the Freedom Fighters' Category. The Secretary to the State Government rejected the representation filed by the appellant for correcting the error in the on line application. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution for setting aside the order passed by the Secretary noting that under the declaration given by the appellant while filling up the application, it was stated that the candidature could be rejected if any discrepancy was found. The learned Single Judge has also relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench rendered in Ram Manohar Yadav v. State of U.P. and three others, (Special Appeal-834 of 2013). In the judgment of the Division Bench in Ram Manohar Yadav (supra) it was observed that where an applicant has shown his incompetence or negligence in not not even correctly filling up a simple on line application form for employment, interference of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was not warranted. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench in Puspraj Singh v. State of U.P. and others, (Special Appeal-75 of 2013). That is a case where the appellant had wrongly described himself as a female candidate. On these facts, the Division Bench accepted the contention that human error had caused an incorrect on line entry, since there was no reason for the appellant to make such a declaration and that he did not stand to gain anything by making such an incorrect entry. In the present case, the appellant claimed the benefit of Freedom Fighters category. The contention that this was as a result of an error committed by the Computer Operator cannot simply be accepted for the reason that the appellant would necessarily be responsible for any statement which he made on line. In the present case, the appellant claimed the benefit of Freedom Fighters category. The contention that this was as a result of an error committed by the Computer Operator cannot simply be accepted for the reason that the appellant would necessarily be responsible for any statement which he made on line. If the Courts were to accept such a plea of the appellant, that would result in a situation where the appellant would get the benefit of a wrong category if the wrong claim went unnoticed and if noticed, the appellant could always turn around and claim that this was as a result of human error. Each candidate necessarily must bear the consequences of his failure to fill up the application form correctly. No fault can, therefore, be found in rejecting the application for correction when the candidate himself has failed to make a proper disclosure or where, as in the present case, the application is submitted under a wrong category. Interference of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is clearly not warranted in such matters as it creates grave uncertainty since the selection process cannot be finally completed. Moreover, in the present case, the appointment was of a contractual nature for a period of eleven months. Hence, considering the matter from any perspective, the learned Single Judge was not in error in dismissing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.'' 24. In Special Appeal Defective No. 117 of 2014 (Km. Richa Pandey v. Examination Regulatory Authority and another) decided on February 18, 2014, the Division Bench of this Court observed as follows : ''The OMR sheets are provided to the candidates to speed up evaluation through help of computer. In case we accept the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the language in which the petitioner had written essay could be checked up by the examiner before feeding answer book into computer, the entire process of expediting the results will be lost. Where OMR sheets are to be examined with aid of the computer, it is not advisable and practical to direct that each OMR sheet should be checked by the examiners and the columns, which have not been filled up may be filled up by the examiner himself with the aid of the language used by the candidates for writing essay. Where OMR sheets are to be examined with aid of the computer, it is not advisable and practical to direct that each OMR sheet should be checked by the examiners and the columns, which have not been filled up may be filled up by the examiner himself with the aid of the language used by the candidates for writing essay. We are informed by Standing Counsel that about seven lacs candidates had appeared in the test. With such large number of candidates appearing in TET Examination 2013 it would not have been possible nor it was feasible for examiners to look into the answer sheets individually before feeding them into computer for correcting any mistakes. We agree with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge that where the applicant is not capable of correctly filling up the form, she is not entitled to any discretionary relief from the Court. The special appeal is dismissed.'' 25. A similar controversy has also been dealt by this Court in Special Appeal No. 90 of 2018 decided on April 25, 2018 (Jai Karan Singh and 52 others v. State of U.P. and others). The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows : ''The writ petitioners had admittedly given incorrect information in the OMR Answer sheet relating to either the Registration Number, the Roll Number or Question Booklet Series and the Language attempted and that is why their results have not been declared. The manual check can be conducted but the larger issue before the Court is whether such a direction should be given at all. In our opinion, it is for the examining body to work out a method for the recruitment process and the manner in which Answer Sheets is evaluated and once clear instructions have been given to the candidates that incorrect information relating to Registration Number, Roll Number, Question Booklet Series and Language attempted would lead to non-declaration of the result, the examining body should not be directed to conduct a manual check 72, 876 OMR answer-sheets. This would take substantial time and ultimately result in causing delay in the declaration of the result. It is this delay that was sought to be eliminated by requiring the candidates to give reasons in the OMR Answer Sheet so that they could be scanned by electronic means. This would take substantial time and ultimately result in causing delay in the declaration of the result. It is this delay that was sought to be eliminated by requiring the candidates to give reasons in the OMR Answer Sheet so that they could be scanned by electronic means. The error committed by the candidates cannot be said to be minor in nature. It is the Registration Number, Roll Number that determines identity of the candidates. The candidates who appeared in the examination were mature students and were to be appointed as Assistant Teachers in institution. They should have read the instructions that was issued time and again and should have correctly filled the entries relating to Roll Number, Registration Number, Question Booklet Series and Language attempted. The entries were, however, inaccurately filled as a result of which the scanner has not been able to process the result.'' 26. Similar view has also been taken by the another Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 247 of 2020 decided on June 09, 2020 (Ramesh Chandra and others v. The State of U.P. and others). The following was observed : ''if this Court permits the appellants and persons alike to have manual corrections in the OMR sheet, then that will frustrate the entire purpose of using technology for expeditious completion of the process of selection.'' 27. In Arvind Kumar Yadav v. The State of U.P. and another passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 988 of 2020 decided on November 24, 2020, the Division Bench of this Court observed as follows : ''Factual matrix of the case is that the appellant-petitioner faced a process of selection by appearing in TGT Examination-2016. The examination aforesaid was conducted by use of Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheet. The appellant-petitioner failed to fill in the sheet concerned properly. He therefore, made a request to cure the deficiency manually. The respondents refused for the same and, therefore, a petition for writ was filed that came to be dismissed under the order impugned. Learned single Bench held that the instructions contained in OMR sheet are to be adhered strictly and no deficiency could have been satisfied manually. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioner is that the appellant-petitioner inadvertently caused an error and that deserves to be rectified. The appellant-petitioner should have been allowed to cure the deficiency manually. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioner is that the appellant-petitioner inadvertently caused an error and that deserves to be rectified. The appellant-petitioner should have been allowed to cure the deficiency manually. We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The OMR sheet is to be examined electronically by using artificial intelligence and in that no deficiency could have been satisfied manually. In view of it, we do not find any just reason to interfere in the matter. The appeal is dismissed.'' 28. In Special Appeal Defective No. 1187 of 2020 (Chirman Madhyamic Shiksha Sewa Chayan Board and another v. Jhallar and another) decided on January 13, 2021, the Division Bench of this Court observed as follows : ''For selection to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher or Post Graduate Teachers, the seriousness needs to be attached in case, subject code is not marked in the OMR sheet. Such errors cannot be ignored to extend the benefit to defaulting candidates. It is more so when now the process involve technology to complete it expeditiously. The acceptance of the prayer of the petitioner/non-appellant would have delayed the selection. It is more so when with declaration of result, the process for appointment has been carried out and would be effected if the plea of the petitioner/non-appellant is accepted. It is not that petitioner/non-appellant is not educated enough to read the instruction. It is when the selection was for the post of P.G.T. '' 29. While deciding the aforesaid Special Appeal, judgment given in the case of Jai Karan Singh's case (Supra) was also taken into consideration. 30. A similar controversy has also been raised before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Prasad Duvey and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2021(4) ADJ 236 (DB). The arguments raised before the Division Bench was that there was a mistake with regard to the circles darkened/filling up the bubbles/circles relating to their Roll number in the OMR sheet. The aforesaid argument was dealt in paragraph 11 of the aforesaid order which is quoted below : ''11. No doubt, it does appear to be a hard case, at least for the appellants 2, 3 and 4. The aforesaid argument was dealt in paragraph 11 of the aforesaid order which is quoted below : ''11. No doubt, it does appear to be a hard case, at least for the appellants 2, 3 and 4. But the issue here is whether the writ Court should interfere in such matters, particularly when instructions are clear and categorical that an erroneous entry in the OMR sheet in respect of certain fields of information sought, including Roll number, would render the answer sheet invalid. The said issue is no longer res integra. 31. A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) has also taken similar view in the case of Jitendra Sharma and another v. State of Rajasthan and others : D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 73/2021 decided on February 2, 2021, the relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows : ''3. Precisely, the case set out by the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that it was only a bona fide mistake on their part that the column meant for corresponding question booklet remained unfilled and therefore, on that account, the refusal of the respondents to evaluate the OMR answer sheets, is absolutely unjustified. It was contended that when the provision has been made for evaluating the answer sheets while deducting 5 marks in case of wrong mentioning of roll number, it was incumbent upon the respondents to evaluate the answer sheets while permitting the appellants to rectify the error crept in. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the appellants were not aware about issuance of two sets of question booklet inasmuch as, they were issued set 'B' of question booklet. Reiterating the contention raised before the learned Single Judge, learned counsel submitted that in case of mentioning of wrong roll number, the mistake is permitted to be rectified by deducting 5 marks, there was no reason not to permit the appellants to rectify the mistake of non indication of the set of question booklet opted. 5. Indisputably, before attempting the question paper, the candidates were expected to read the instructions carefully. Unless question booklet 'A' or 'B' opted by the appellants is reflected in the OMR sheets, the answers given could not have been evaluated by OMR software application. 5. Indisputably, before attempting the question paper, the candidates were expected to read the instructions carefully. Unless question booklet 'A' or 'B' opted by the appellants is reflected in the OMR sheets, the answers given could not have been evaluated by OMR software application. The appellants, who were negligent in not reading the instructions properly and not filling the column meant for corresponding question booklet set, could not have been granted indulgence to fill up the column in the OMR sheets subsequently. If the OMR sheets are permitted to be opened and corrected in this manner, it may result in making fairness and transparency in the examination process questionable. For the parity of reasons, the OMR sheet cannot be permitted to be evaluated physically either. 6. For the aforementioned reasons, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge.'' 32. In view of the discussion, the fact remains that once the instructions were clear and were to apply universally to all candidates, if the error as per the instructions is fatal, a hands-off approach by the Writ Court is justified, hence we find no good reason to interfere in the matter. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.