Case Note & Summary
The writ appeal arose from the dismissal of a writ petition that challenged the selection list for a recruitment examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC). The appellant, a candidate, had his OMR answer sheet rejected due to improper shading of the question booklet number and double shading, which rendered the sheet unreadable by the automated valuation system. The single judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the rejection was in accordance with the examination instructions and the technology employed for evaluation. In the intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the Division Bench examined the facts. The appellant contended that his answer sheet should have been evaluated, while the TNPSC argued that the candidate failed to follow the clear shading instructions, which explicitly stated that improper shading would lead to rejection. The automated process, designed to maintain accuracy and transparency, could not be interfered with. The court noted that the appellant had not only failed to correctly shade the booklet number but also made double markings, making identification impossible. The court observed that interference by courts in such technical matters would open a pandora's box and undermine the integrity of system-based evaluations. Finding no infirmity in the order of the single judge, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal with no order as to costs. The decision reinforces the principle that candidates must adhere strictly to examination instructions and that courts will not lightly disturb the results of automated evaluation processes.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Examination Matters - OMR Sheet Valuation - Not mentioned - The appellant's OMR sheet was automatically rejected due to improper shading of the question booklet number and double shading, violating instructions. The respondent argued that system-based evaluation ensures accuracy and transparency. The court held that such automated processes should not be interfered with to avoid opening a pandora’s box. Held that the writ court's order was free from infirmity and dismissed the appeal. (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of an OMR sheet for improper shading and double marking, as per examination instructions, is valid and whether courts can interfere in such automated valuation processes.
Final Decision
Writ appeal dismissed. No costs.
Law Points
- OMR sheet must be properly shaded as per instructions
- automated valuation cannot be second-guessed
- courts should not interfere in technical examination processes
