Allahabad High Court

GARIMA DIWAKERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: SIDDHARTH NANDAN

Holding

No relief can be granted; the writ petition is dismissed because the examination instructions are mandatory and must be strictly complied with.

Summary

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his result on the ground that, although the numeric entry of the Question Book Number on the OMR sheet was correct, an extra bubble was inadvertently marked in another column. The respondents, including the State and the examination commission, argued that such inadvertent markings were widespread, affecting about 14,000 candidates, and that the examination instructions are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. The Court examined precedents, notably U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh and State of Tamil Nadu v. G. Hemalathaa, which emphasize that instructions cannot be relaxed and that the onus is on the candidate to avoid glaring mistakes. It also considered the Division Bench’s observations in similar cases that manual verification would defeat the purpose of OMR‑based evaluation. Concluding that the error was not a minor technicality but a breach of mandatory instructions, the Court held that no relief could be granted and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether a minor inadvertent marking error in an OMR answer sheet warrants cancellation of the candidate's result.
Whether the examining authority is bound to strictly enforce mandatory instructions and cannot be compelled to conduct manual verification.
Whether the court can intervene in matters of academic/examination procedures.
Whether relief can be granted on humanitarian grounds despite non‑compliance with examination instructions.

Subjects

OMR sheet
examination instructions
mandatory compliance
result declaration
writ petition
administrative law
fairness
transparency

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14195 of 2026

Garima Diwaker
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ankit Tripathi, Parbind Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kushmondeya Shahi

A.F.R.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

1. Heard Shri P.K. Tiwari, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner
and Shri Tanju Shahi, Advocate holding brief of Shri K. Shahi, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Commission and learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the OMR
sheet in the column of 'Question Book Number' though numerically
correct entry was made i.e. 204103343; but however, in the second
column along with the first bubble (corresponding to '0'), the fourth
bubble was also inadvertently marked; and as such though the entry in the
form of numeric, has been rightly made, the OMR sheet has not been
evaluated merely on a slight marking in the fourth bubble of the second
column.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Commission submits that the
inadvertence in the examination, while filling up the OMR sheet is not
confined to few candidates but 14000 such rejections are there on the
record.
3. The Apex Court in the case of U.P. Public Service Commission and
Another vs. Rahul Singh and another reported in (2018) 3 ESC 377
(SC), considered the extent and power of the Court to interfere in the
matter of academic nature and after considering the judgment in the case
of Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and others vs. Samir
Gupta and others, (1983) 4 SCC 309 and Ran Vijay Singh and others
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2018) 2 SCC 357, relying on
WRIA No. 14195 of 2026
2

paras-31 and 32 has eventually held that law is well settled that onus is on
the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but
also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential
process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong.
4. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of Vinay Kumar vs. State
of U.P. and others reported in (2022) 4 ADJ 631 (DB), wherein, also
decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and
others vs. G. Hemalathaa and Another; reported in (2019) SCCOnline
SC 1113 was considered and had observed that the High Court after
summoning and perusing the answer-sheet of the respondent was
convinced that there was infraction of the instructions; and thereafter the
High Court granted relief to the respondent on sympathetic consideration
on human grounds: the Apex Court held that 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 however
admitted that 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;
and eventually had set aside the judgment of the High Court. The Apex
Court had held that instructions issued are mandatory and have to be
strictly complied with strict adherence, terms and conditions and
instructions is of paramount importance.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3
submits that such inadvertence in the examination in question is not
confined to the present candidate, but 14,000 such rejections are on
record. The Apex Court, in the case of U.P. Public Service Commission
(supra), had considered the extent and power of the Court to interfere in
matters of academic nature.
6. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Vinay Kumar
(supra), wherein the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of
Tamil Nadu (supra), was also considered. It was observed that the High
Court, after summoning and perusing the answer sheet of the respondent,
was convinced that there was an infraction of the instructions; and
thereafter, the High Court granted relief to the respondent on sympathetic
consideration and on human grounds. The Apex Court held that, in spite
of the finding that there was no adherence to the instructions, the High
WRIA No. 14195 of 2026
3

Court granted relief ignoring the mandatory nature of the instructions. It,
however, observed that it cannot be said that such exercise of discretion
should be affirmed, especially when such direction is in the teeth of the
instructions which are binding upon the candidates taking the
examinations. Eventually, the judgment of the High Court was set aside.
The Apex Court held that the instructions issued are mandatory and have
to be strictly complied with, and strict adherence to the terms, conditions,
and instructions is of paramount importance.
7. Similar controversy has also been dealt by this Court in Special
Appeal No.90 of 2018 Jai Karan Singh and 52 others vs. State of U.P.
and others) decided on 25.04.2018. For ready reference relevant extract
of the judgment is reproduced below:-
"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 answers 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."
8. It is no longer res intigra that instructions are mandatory in nature and
the candidates are expected to read the instructions carefully and the
WRIA No. 14195 of 2026
4

OMR Sheets has to be filled up, as the answers given cannot be evaluated
with infraction of the instructions, by the OMR Software Application and
candidates who are negligent in not reading the instructions properly and
not filling the columns meant for corresponding question booklet set,
could not have been granted indulgence to fill up the columns in the OMR
Sheet, subsequently.
9. The Court is also conscious of the fact that if such indulgence is
granted subsequently then it may also result in making the fairness and
transparency of the examination process questionable; and therefore the
OMR Sheets cannot be permitted to be evaluated physically either. The
aforesaid observation is also fortified by the decision in the case of U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection Board vs. State of U.P. and
others reported in 2022 (4) ADJ 7 (DB), wherein also similar
conclusion has been given by the Division Bench of this Court.
10. This Court has also considered the Division Bench decision in the
case of Vinay Kumar (supra) in Writ-A No.9780 of 2026 (Gaurav
Kumar Gautam vs. State of U.P. and others).
11. In view of the aforesaid, no relief can be granted and accordingly the
writ petition is dismissed. However no order as to costs.

(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
September 23, 2026
S.Prakash

Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…