Delhi High Court
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection … vs Niharika Puhan on 21 August, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 28.07.2025
Pronounced on: 21.08.2025
+ W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & CM APPL. 74873/2024
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD
AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.S.K. Mishra, Adv
versus
NIHARIKA PUHAN .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Ritank Kumar, Adv
+ W.P.(C) 1282/2025 & CM APPL. 6328/2025 & 6330/2025
KUSUM GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Mr.Pradeep
Kumar & Mr.Lovekesh
Chauhan, Advs
versus
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD &
ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat, SC for
GNCTD (Services) with
Mr.Nitesh Kumar Singh,
Ms.Aliza Alam, Mr.Mohnish
Sehrawat, Advs
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
JUDGMENT
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
1. These petitions have been filed by the petitioners, challenging
the Order dated 05.08.2024 passed in O.A. No. 2517/2022, titled
Niharika Puhan v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board &
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 1 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
Ors. (in W.P. (C) 17595/2024), and the Order dated 06.12.2024
passed in O.A. No. 1832/2023, titled Kusum Gupta v. Chairman
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Ors. (in W.P. (C)
1282/2025), by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟).
2. By the Impugned Order dated 05.08.2024 passed in O.A. No.
2517/2022, the O.A. filed by the respondent herein was allowed by the
learned Tribunal, directing the petitioners to process the OMR answer
sheet of the respondent for evaluation and, if found to meet the merit
list and otherwise eligible, to grant consequential relief by issuing an
offer of appointment.
3. In contrast, by the Order dated 06.12.2024 passed in O.A.
No.1832/2023, the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed.
4. In both these petitions, the question that arises for consideration
before this Court is the effect of the candidate/respondent in W.P. (C)
17595/2024 and the petitioner in W.P. (C) 1282/2025, having
marked/bubbled their Roll Numbers with an incorrect digit, while at
the same time correctly mentioning their Roll Numbers in numerical
form on the OMR sheet. It is for this reason that both these petitions
are being considered by this common judgment.
5. To begin with, we shall first note the facts from which these
two petitions arise.
FACTS OF THE W.P.(C) 17595/2024: –
6. The petitioners had issued an advertisement in 2017, inter alia,
inviting applications for the post of Physical Education Teachers (Post
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 2 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
Code 90/17). The respondent applied for the said post and participated
in the Tier-I Selection Process, that is, the written examination.
7. By a Notice No. F.No. 187/PET/DSSB/Int.Cell/2019-
2020/2840-45 dated 04.06.2019, the respondent was declared
disqualified in the examination. The notice, inter alia, states as under:
” 1. Whereas it is stated that all candidates
who appeared in the examination held on
16/09/2018 for the post of Physical Education
Teacher under Post Code-90/17 in Directorate
of Education were given clear instructions on
Question Booklet as well as on OMR answer
sheet including the following directions:
a) The candidate must complete the
details of Roll Number, Question Booklet
No., etc., on the Answer-sheet and Answer-
sheet No. on the space provided above in this
Question Booklet, I before he/she actually
start answering the questions, failing which
Answer-sheet will not be evaluated and
he/she will be awarded ‘Zero’ mark.
b) A machine will read the coded
information in the OMR Answer sheet. In
case the information is incomplete/ different
from the information given in the application
form, the candidature of such candidates will
be treated as cancelled.
c) Valuation of answer sheet will be done
on the computer. Candidate should not take
any stray marks on the Answer Sheet, tamper
with or mutilate it. Otherwise it will not be
evaluated.
d) The appropriate circle should be
shaded for Roll No., Question Booklet No.
and Preference of Post Codes applied for etc.
This should be done carefully because only
the shaded circle is scanned.
2. It is further informed that the Board has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 3 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
been following the automated system of
reading Roll No. etc. on OMR answer sheet
through scanner without any manual
intervention. Further, the automated
system/scanner did not identify the Roll No. on
OMR answer sheet in respect of One Hundred
Sixty Eight (168) candidates who appeared in
the examination held on 16/09/2018 for the
post of Physical Education Teacher under Post
Code-90/ 17 in Directorate of Education due
to wrong bubbling of roll number in OMR
answer sheet by the respective candidates.
Hence, their question booklet/OMR Answer
sheets could not be evaluated as per details
given below;
…..”
8. The respondent sought a copy of the OMR Sheet under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, „RTI Act‟), through an
application dated 08.08.2019. The request was, however, rejected.
Subsequently, upon an appeal filed by the respondent, and through a
reply dated 13.10.2021, she was provided a copy of the OMR Sheet,
which revealed that although she had correctly mentioned her Roll
Number in digits, it had been incorrectly depicted in the bubbling.
9. Claiming that the OMR Sheet did not clearly show the darkened
bubble, while the Roll Number in digits was correctly mentioned, the
respondent filed the above O.A. before the learned Tribunal on or
around September 2022.
10. As noted hereinabove, the learned Tribunal, by its Impugned
Order, allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent, primarily placing
reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Staff Selection Commission
v. Kritika Raj, 2016:DHC:4142-DB.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 4 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
FACTS OF THE W.P.(C) 1282/2025: –
11. As far as this Writ Petition is concerned, the respondent no.1
had issued an Advertisement No. 04/2017 dated 20.12.2017 inviting
applications, inter alia, for the Post of TGT Special Education
Teachers (Post Code 87/17) in the Directorate of Education,
Government of NCT of Delhi. The petitioner applied for the said post
and participated in the Tier-I Written Examination.
12. It is the case of the petitioner that the question paper and the
OMR Sheet at the centre where she appeared for the written
examination, were distributed with a delay of 40 minutes to all the
candidates. She claims that though the candidates were given an extra
30 minutes, on account of the above delay, mental agony and
disturbance of mental peace was caused to the petitioner.
13. Herein itself, we may note that the above submission of the
petitioner was disputed by the respondents, and the learned Tribunal
has not returned any finding on the same. We shall, therefore, proceed
on the basis that the petitioner was unable to prove her above
contention.
14. The respondent no.1 issued the result on 14.09.2018, whereby
the petitioner was informed that she had been shortlisted for the
aforesaid post and was called upon to upload the e-dossier. The
petitioner claims to have complied with the requisition, however, in
the final result declared on 28.02.2019, her name did not appear in the
list of 136 candidates selected against 542 unreserved vacancies.
Another list, also dated 28.02.2019, was issued by the respondent no.
1 containing the names of candidates rejected for one reason or
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 5 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
another, however, the petitioner claims that her name or Roll Number
was not mentioned in that list either.
15. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application dated 02.03.2019
seeking reasons for the omission of her name from both lists. She
claims that on 05.03.2019, the respondent no. 1 informed her that her
candidature had been rejected on the ground of incorrect bubbling of
her Roll Number in the OMR Sheet. She further claims that it was
only on 06.03.2019 that the respondent no. 1 uploaded another
rejection list/Notice No. 357 dated 28.02.2019, in which her Roll
Number was included at Sr. No. 67 among the candidates whose
candidature had been rejected.
16. The petitioner, vide her application dated 07.03.2019, sought a
copy of her OMR Sheet under the RTI Act, 2005, but by a reply dated
12.04.2019, she was informed that the copy of the OMR Sheet cannot
be supplied to her.
17. Aggrieved thereby, she filed an O.A., being O.A.
No.1890/2019, before the learned Tribunal.
18. During the pendency of the said O.A., the petitioner was
supplied a copy of the OMR Sheet under the RTI Act, 2005, by the
respondent no.1. The O.A. filed by the petitioner was, therefore,
withdrawn on 25.05.2023, with liberty to file a comprehensive O.A.
before the learned Tribunal.
19. The petitioner then filed the O.A. No.1832/2023 on 13.06.2023,
before the learned Tribunal.
20. As noted hereinabove, the learned Tribunal, by the Impugned
Order, dismissed the same, observing that the instructions on the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 6 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
OMR Sheet, in the examination booklet, and in the advertisement,
repeatedly warned the candidates to be careful while bubbling the
OMR Sheet, and that the respondent no.1 could cancel the result in
case of any discrepancy. The candidates were cautioned that if the
Roll Number or the question booklet series number was wrongly filled
or any entry left blank, the OMR Sheet would not be evaluated.
Despite these instructions, the petitioner wrongly filled her Roll
Number, which mistake, according to the learned Tribunal, could not
be considered minor in nature.
21. The learned Tribunal further held that if such mistakes were to
be condoned and ignored, it would lead to a situation where there
would be no end to such issues in the examination/selection process.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE
PARTIES: –
22. The learned counsel for DSSSB and the Government of NCT of
Delhi submits that the instructions issued to the candidates were clear
and specific, namely, that they must exercise due care while bubbling
their Roll Numbers, Test Paper Numbers, and other details in their
OMR sheets, and that any mistake committed therein would lead to
the rejection of their candidature. It is submitted that, therefore, the
candidatures of the candidates in question were rightly rejected by the
department. In support of their submissions, reliance is placed on the
Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v.
Mahendra Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 909; the Judgments of this
Court in Union Public Service Commission v. Kalpana Ved, 2024
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 7 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
SCC OnLine Del 7804; Sandeep Kumar Yadav v. Union of India &
Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7764; and Roshan Lal v. Union of India
& Anr., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5145.
23. Mr. N.K. Singh, the learned counsel, further submits that there
were 97 candidates whose results were cancelled solely due to a
mistake in bubbling their Roll Numbers. Granting relief to the
candidate herein, it is urged, would be discriminatory towards them. In
any case, the entire result cannot be reopened for what is admittedly
the fault of the candidate alone.
24. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the candidates
submits that, as far as W.P. (C) 1282/2025 is concerned, the OMR
sheet of the candidate had been duly checked by the department and
the result had even been declared. It was only thereafter that the
candidature of the candidate was cancelled on the above ground of
incorrect bubbling of the Roll Numbers.
25. It is further submitted that, as the Roll Number had also been
correctly written in numerical form, and there were other parameters
such as the test paper number and the barcode, which were sufficient
to identify the candidate and also to correlate the candidate with the
OMR sheet, the incorrect bubbling of the Roll Numbers in the OMR
sheet was only a minor mistake, which should not have resulted in the
cancellation of the candidature of such candidates.
26. They further submit that the OMR sheet was also countersigned
by the invigilators, who also did not point out any discrepancy in the
bubbling of the Roll Numbers. Reliance is placed on the Judgments of
this Court in Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Darpan Sharma,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 8 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
2024 SCC OnLine Del 8280; Staff Selection Commission v. Kritika
Raj, 2016:DHC:4142-DB; Union of India & Ors. v. Vinay Kumar,
2024:DHC:2625-DB; and the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana in Rohit Kumar v. Union of India & Anr., 2012 SCC
OnLine P&H 12933.
27. The learned counsel for the candidates submits that the relief
granted in Darpan Sharma (supra), was confined only to those
candidates who had approached the Court, and therefore, the plea of
the department that the result would have to be reopened is without
merit.
28. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the department submits that
the Judgment in Kritika Raj (supra), has no application to the facts of
the present case, inasmuch as therein, the candidate had already
cleared the Tier-I and Tier-II examinations, and it was only in the
qualifying examination that a mistake was committed. It was in those
special circumstances that the Court granted relief to the candidate.
29. They further submit that in Darpan Sharma (supra), there was
no breach of any instructions by the candidate, and therefore, the said
judgment will have no application.
30. As regards Vinay Kumar (supra), it is contended that the
mistake therein was in writing the Roll Number in the numerical form
and not in the bubbling, and therefore, again, the said judgment would
have no application to the facts of the present case.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: –
31. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 9 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
32. As far as the W.P.(C) 17595/2024 is concerned, the relevant
conditions in the question booklet as well as in the OMR Sheet,
specifically that the appropriate circles should be shaded for the Roll
Number, question booklet number, and the preference of the post code
applied for, and that only the shaded circles are scanned, because of
which the candidature of such candidates may not be evaluated and
they would be awarded zero marks, have been reproduced in the
Rejection Notice dated 04.06.2019. We, therefore, do not consider it
necessary to reproduce them once again.
33. As far as W.P.(C) 1282/2025 is concerned, the learned Tribunal
itself has noted that, at Point No.5 of the question booklet under the
heading “Important Instruction to candidates”, the candidates were
warned that they must complete the details of the Roll Number,
Question Booklet Number, etc., on the OMR Sheet before beginning
to answer the question, failing which the answer sheet would not be
evaluated and the candidate would be awarded zero mark. Point No.14
of the Question Booklet provided an illustration of the correct method
of shading, and Point No.16 specifically stated as under:
“A machine will read the coded information in
the OMR Answer Sheet. In case, the
information is incomplete/different from the
information given in the application form, the
candidature of such candidate will be treated
as cancelled.”
34. Even the OMR Sheet, under the title “Instruction for
Candidates”, again provides an illustration of the correct mode of
shading.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 10 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
35. Therefore, in both the petitions, the candidates had been
adequately warned that they must take care while shading/bubbling,
inter alia, their Roll Number. It is now admitted that the respondent
no.1 in W.P.(C) 17595/2024 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) 1282/2025,
despite such warnings, committed a mistake in shading/bubbling their
Roll Number in the OMR Sheet. The question before this Court is to
determine the effect thereof.
36. In Darpan Sharma (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court
was considering a case where the respondent had qualified the Tier-I
Examination and appeared in Paper-I of the Tier-II examination. The
candidates were required to fill-in the “Test Form Number” in both,
the Attendance Sheet and the OMR Sheet, and were also required to
darken the bubbles corresponding to the appropriate digits. The OMR
Sheet had the Test Form Number printed on the upper left corner of
the form. The respondent therein omitted to blacken /darken the
appropriate bubbles for the Test Form Number in his OMR Sheet, as a
result of which his Paper I was not evaluated. The respondent therein,
however, did not commit such a mistake in Paper-II of the Tier-II
examination, which was therefore evaluated. As Paper-I in the Tier-II
was not evaluated, the respondent could not meet the cut-off marks
and was not called for the interview. The Court, placing reliance on
the Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in The Union of
India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & pensions North
Block, New Delhi, rep. by its Secretary & 2 Others v. Guduru Raja
Surya Praveen S/o G. Venkateswara Rao & Anr., 2015 SCC OnLine
Hyd 437, held that the above mistake of the respondent was a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 11 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
condonable lapse, and the authorities could not refuse to evaluate the
respondent‟s answer sheet for that reason. The Court observed that the
Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh had been dismissed by the Supreme Court on
30.07.2019, and since the error committed by the petitioner before the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the respondent before this Court
was the same, the respondent therein was entitled to a similar relief.
The Court further observed that the Test Form Number was
specifically noted on the OMR Sheet and, therefore, it was not as if
the same was not available thereon. The Court also noted that, at the
foot of the answer sheet, the Invigilators were also required to sign. As
candidates undertaking such examinations are often in a state of
heightened tension and may commit silly errors, a duty is cast on the
Invigilator to verify that all the details in the answer sheet have been
correctly filled in, in order to avoid silly errors being made by such
candidates. We quote from the Judgment as under:
“21. The first is that the error committed by
the respondent was only with respect to not
blackening the digits referring to the Test
Form Number. We find that the Test Form
Number i.e. TQ 1144135 is specifically noted
on the top left corner of the OMR sheet. It is
not, therefore, as though the Test Form
Number was not available on the OMR sheet,
even though, the respondent, as Mr. Khatana
candidly concedes, did commit a mistake in
not blackening the same number in the place
provided in the OMR sheet.
22. The second circumstance, to which Mr.
Khatana draws our attention, is a Note, at the
foot of the answer sheet which require the
Invigilator who signs the attendance sheet to
first verify that all details have been correctlySignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 12 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
filled in. This is obviously in recognition of the
fact that candidates who undertake such
examinations are in a state of heightened
tension and may commit silly errors, as was
committed by the respondent before us. The
duty, cast on the Invigilator to verify that all
details in the answer sheet had been correctly
filled in case, quite obviously, is to avoid the
possibility of silly errors coming into view of
her dispassionate evaluation of the merit of the
concerned candidate.”
37. We have referred to the above judgment in some detail, only for
the reason that like in the present case, although the conditions in the
Notice Inviting applications for the CGLE 2015 had warned the
candidates that they should write and code their Roll Number etc.
fully and correctly and that improper/incomplete coding of these
details will not be evaluated, the Court held that the authorities could
not refuse to evaluate the answer sheet. The Court laid special
emphasis on the OMR sheet also being signed by the Invigilators and
the fact that it bore the Test Form Number, which would have been
sufficient to identify the candidate.
38. In W.P.(C) 1282/2025 also, though the OMR Sheet had warned
the candidates that in case of wrong bubbling of inter alia their Roll
Number, the OMR Sheet would not be evaluated and they would be
awarded zero marks, the OMR Sheet of the petitioner was evaluated
despite her having wrongly bubbled her Roll Number. She was also
declared successful in the examination and was called upon to upload
her e-dossier. The mistake committed by the respondents, therefore,
did not result in her being awarded zero marks at that stage, nor did it
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 13 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
result in her OMR Sheet not being evaluated. It was only later that she
was declared rejected due to the above mistake.
39. In addition to the above, just as in Darpan Sharma (supra), the
OMR Sheet of the respondent has also been signed by the Invigilator.
40. In Vinay Kumar (supra), another Division Bench of this Court
was confronted with a case where the candidate had failed to write the
complete Roll Number on his answer sheet for Paper-II of the Tier-II
recruitment examination. The Court found that the lapse on the part of
the candidate was insignificant, as he could be easily identified from
the ticket number written on the very same answer sheet, where he had
merely missed writing the last digit of his Roll Number. The mistake
was, therefore, trivial and bona fide, and could not be a ground to
reject his candidature.
41. In Kritika Raj (supra), another Division Bench of this Court
was confronted with a case where, on the basis of the performance of
the respondent therein in the Tier-I and Tier-II examinations as also
the interview, she had participated in the Computer Proficiency Test
(„CP Test‟), which was only qualifying in nature. She was declared
selected for the post of Assistant in the Central Civil Services.
However, her result was later cancelled by awarding her zero marks in
the Power Point (Module-III) in the CP Test, as she had incorrectly
filled up her Roll Number. The Court held that, while in a given
situation, writing an incorrect Roll Number may have different
consequences, however, in the said case, the error was inconsequential
and immaterial inasmuch as: (i) the name of the candidate was not
mentioned on the Slide Test (Module-III); (ii) the correct Roll Number
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 14 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
was mentioned and recorded in Module-1 and II conducted
simultaneously; (iii) there was no scope for debate about the identity
of the candidate; (iv) no confusion or inconvenience was caused; and
(v) the CP Test was merely qualifying in nature. In these
circumstances, her candidature could not have been rejected. The
above judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court by dismissing the
SLP being SLP (C) No.CC 25206/2016, titled as Staff Selection
Commission v. Kritika Raj, vide Order dated 20.01.2017.
42. In W.P.(C) 1282/2025 as well, since the result of the petitioner
was declared despite her having made a mistake in bubbling her Roll
Number, we are of the view that she should not have been denied the
fruits of her selection.
43. As we would note herein below, in case the OMR Sheet of the
petitioner had not been examined, the position may have been
different. However, having examined the OMR Sheet, the respondents
cannot now plead that the computer could not read it due to the
incorrect bubbling of the Roll Number.
44. In Kalpana Ved (supra), the Court was considering a case
where the candidate had not applied online. The Court held that,
therefore, the application submitted only in offline mode was rightly
not considered by the UPSC.
45. In Mehendra Singh (supra), the Supreme Court was
considering a condition stipulating that the candidate must answer the
question paper in the language in which he/she had applied for the
post. The Court held that the above condition was essential and ruled
out any dispute in respect of the identity of the candidate, as the same
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 15 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
could be verified from the two handwritings. The Court, therefore,
held that where the advertisement contemplated the manner of filling
the application form and also of attempting the answer sheet, it had to
be done in the prescribed manner; and where the candidate had used a
different language, such a deviation would disentitle the candidate
from being considered eligible.
46. While the above principle, in our view, would also apply to the
incorrect bubbling of the Roll Number in the OMR Sheet, in the facts
of the present case, where such an error did not result in the OMR
Sheet not being evaluated, different consequences would follow.
However, in W.P.(C) 17595/2024, where the OMR sheet of the
petitioner was not evaluated, these judgments would squarely apply to
deny her the relief.
47. We may herein also note that the learned counsel for the
respondents has submitted that in WP(C) 1282/2025, there were 98
candidates who were declared disqualified due to the mistake in
bubbling their Roll Number.
48. While in normal circumstances, we would have directed the
respondents to consider their case as well, however, having taken note
of the fact that these candidates had been declared as disqualified vide
notice issued on 28.02.2019 (05.03.2019) and that such candidates
have not challenged the same, and following the interim order passed
by the Supreme Court in Guduru Raja Surya Praveen (supra) as also
the judgment of this Court in Darpan Sharma (supra), we would
confine the relief only to the petitioner in W.P.(C) 1282/2025, that is,
Ms.Kusum Gupta. However, in case any other O.A. or Writ Petition is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 16 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
pending on a similar issue, or involves a similar challenge by a
candidate rejected in the same selection process due to the incorrect
bubbling of his/her Roll Number, similar relief shall also be extended
to such candidates.
49. Now proceeding to WP(C) 17595/2004, we would begin by
referring to the judgment in Roshan Lal (supra), wherein this Court
was considering a case where the Test Form Number was required to
be bubbled/shaded. The Court found that the computer would read
only such an OMR Sheet which contained the correct shading of such
a number. The Court, therefore, upheld the rejection of a candidate
who had failed to correctly shade the Test Form Number in the answer
sheet, as a result of which the Answer Sheet could not be read.
50. In Sandeep Kr. Yadav (supra), in similar circumstances, the
Division Bench of this Court held as under:
“15. A glance at the aforesaid instructions
issued to the candidates for purposes of
marking the OMR sheets shows that explicit
directions were given to the candidates to fill
and shade their names, roll numbers, date of
birth, mode, religion, category, question
booklet number & code and sex. All the
candidates were informed that the aforesaid
information would be essential to evaluate
their answer sheets and if the circle as printed
against each category is not shaded correctly,
then a candidate shall be declared as failed
and he would be responsible for such a
mistake. The second page of the OMR sheet,
on which “Instructions for Marking” were
printed, is prefaced with a certificate required
to be signed by the candidate declaring inter
alia that he had read and understood the
instructions set out down below the sheet.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 17 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
16. In the teeth of the aforesaid clear
instructions, the petitioners cannot be heard to
state that their candidatures were rejected on
technical grounds which could not be an
impediment in qualifying them for the second
phase and that the respondents ought to have
condoned their inadvertent mistakes.
17. If the aforesaid submission made by the
learned counsels for the petitioners is
accepted, then, in our opinion, it would open a
Pandora’s box more so when the candidature
of almost 10,000 candidates stationed all over
the country who are similarly situated, were
rejected by the respondents due to wrong
filling/non-filling/non-shading mandatory
fields in the OMR sheets. The present case is
one where thousands of applicants had applied
to the respondent to participate in the first
phase of the examination. If the court heeds
the submission made by the petitioners herein,
then it will have a serious impact on the
respondents who will have to re-do the entire
results by picking up the answer sheets of each
candidate whose candidature has been
rejected due to technical errors in filling up
the OMR sheets and then arrange a second
phase of examination for the subject post by
incurring further expenditure and making
requisite arrangements all over again not only
for a handful of petitioners before us, but for
almost 10,000 similarly placed candidates
located all over the country. This process
could take several months to complete and
shall have the effect of delaying the entire
selection process of appointing Head
Constables (Ministerial) in the BSF, thereby
causing administrative delays and adversely
affecting the efficiency of the force.
18. Another consideration that has weighed
with this court for declining the request of the
petitioners is that not only had the entire
process of the examination concluded by the
time they had approached the court for relief,
if any relief is granted to any of them at this
belated stage, it would have a cascading effectSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 18 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
as other similarly placed candidates who shall
start knocking at the doors of the court asking
for similar relief, which is impermissible.
19. We are therefore of the opinion that if the
respondents are called upon to accept
incomplete OMR sheets of the petitioners, it
shall bring the entire examination process to a
grinding halt which is not in the larger public
interest. More so, when other candidates who
have been disqualified by the respondents for
the same reason, have reconciled themselves
to their fate being mindful of the “Instructions
for Marking” printed in the OMR sheets, and
conscious of the fact that they had committed
mistakes in fulfilling the procedural
formalities prescribed by the BSF at the time
of filling up the OMR sheets. The petitioners
herein cannot be permitted to steal a march
over them merely because they have
approached the court for relief and that too
belatedly, whereas the others have not.”
51. In the present case as well, the respondents have asserted that
the OMR Sheet of the petitioner could not be read and was never
checked because of the incorrect shading of the Roll Number by her.
We are informed that, apart from the respondent, that is, Ms.Niharika
Puhan, there were another 167 candidates whose candidature was
rejected by the petitioners on the same ground of wrong bubbling of
the Roll Number.
52. Though the rejection of the respondent‟s candidature was
declared on 04.06.2019, and she was eventually supplied with her
OMR Sheet on 13.10.2021 pursuant to her application under the RTI
Act, 2005, she filed her O.A. before the learned Tribunal only in
September 2022. The same was, therefore, filed after a considerable
delay of almost one year.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 19 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
53. In the above circumstances, the respondent, that is, Ms.Niharika
Puhan, could not have been extended the benefit of the above-referred
judgments, which we have relied upon while extending relief to Ms.
Kusum Gupta. In her case, granting such relief would result in
reopening the result of the examination after a considerable delay, as
her OMR sheet would now have to be evaluated and the result
redrawn to accommodate her.
54. As held by the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 357, sympathy or compassion cannot play any
role in deciding whether or not to direct re-evaluation of the Answer
Sheet.
55. In view of the above, the Impugned Order dated 05.08.2024
passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.2517/2022 is set aside, and
W.P. (C) 17595/2024 is allowed.
56. The Impugned Order dated 06.12.2024 passed in O.A.
No.1832/2023 is also set aside, and W.P.(C) 1282/2025 is allowed
with a direction that the respondents shall issue an appointment letter
to the petitioner therein, namely, Ms.Kusum Gupta, for the post of
TGT Special Education Teacher with the respondent nos.2 and 3, if
she is otherwise eligible and found successful in the examination
process conducted pursuant to the Advertisement No. 04/17. In case of
appointment, the petitioner shall be entitled to claim notional seniority
and other benefits; however, she shall not be entitled to actual pay or
other allowances till the date of her appointment. The above exercise
must be completed by the respondent no.1 within a period of eight
weeks from today.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 20 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14
57. Both the petitions are disposed of in the above terms. The
pending applications are also disposed of as being infructuous.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J
August 21, 2025/rv/Arya/DG
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17595/2024 & 1282/2025 Page 21 of 21
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.08.2025
18:09:14