Smt. Jagrati Reddy vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per: Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman

Heard Mr. Shukl, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the respondents.

The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the following relief:

In short, the applicant is aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion to the cadre of Postal Services Group 'B' held on 04^th June, 2023. The candidature of the applicant was rejected on the ground that in the OMR sheet of Paper-II the applicant had wrongly/incorrectly marked his Roll Number.

There is no dispute between the parties that, if the Roll Number is wrongly/incorrectly marked or bubbled in the OMR sheet, the candidature of the candidate is liable to be rejected. The applicant has annexed, at Annexure A-3 and Annexure A-4, the photocopy of the OMR answer sheet received after the examination and the OMR answer sheet obtained under the RTI Act, respectively. It is the case of the applicant that the photocopy annexed as Annexure A-3 (page 91) correctly reflects the position and show that the applicant has correctly marked/bubbled his Roll Number on the OMR sheet.

The contention of the respondents, supported by the affidavit-in-reply, is that the applicant had not correctly marked/bubbled his Roll Number in the OMR sheet and, therefore, his candidature was rejected by the machine.

In the light of rival contentions, by the order dated 16^th April, 2026, the respondents were directed to seal the OMR sheet of the applicant and produce the same before the Tribunal on the next date. Yesterday, when the matter was before us, the respondents produced the original OMR sheet in a sealed cover. However, Mr. Shukl was not available physically, and he requested that the matter be adjourned to today.

Today, the OMR sheet, which had been kept in a sealed cover, was opened in open court. We have perused the same. The original OMR answer sheet produced before us today is exactly the same as the OMR answer sheet obtained by the applicant under the RTI Act, a copy of which is annexed at Annexure A-4 (page 92). The original OMR answer sheet makes it abundantly clear that the applicant had wrongly marked his Roll Number and therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected in terms of the examination rules.

Mr. Shukl, learned counsel for the applicant, heavily relied upon the photocopy of the OMR answer sheet which was supplied to the applicant after the examination, a copy of which is annexed at Annexure A-3, page 91.

We have perused the same. However, we are of the opinion that the impression on the carbonless answer sheet received after the examination may or may not have been recorded correctly. We record this observation after having examined the original OMR answer sheet produced before us.

Mr. Shukl, learned counsel for the applicant, then contended that allegations of mala fides have been made and that somebody from the examination-conducting team must have tampered with the OMR sheet. However, allegations of mala fides are required to be specifically pleaded and proved. The person against whom mala fides is alleged is required to be impleaded as a party. We, therefore, asked Mr. Shukl whether any specific allegation of mala fides had been made. Mr. Shukl, thereafter, invited our attention to paragraph 5.1 of the OA and submitted that an allegation had been made that somebody from the examination-conducting team must have tampered the OMR sheet. Thus, it is clear that the allegation of mala fides again is not against a particular person. No individual has been impleaded as a party against whom such allegation has been made. The applicant is, therefore, unable to pinpoint any specific allegation of mala fides against any particular person, and therefore he did not implead anyone alleging mala fides. In the absence of a specific pleading and identification of the person against whom mala fides are alleged, such an allegation cannot be accepted.

Mr. Shukl, thereafter relied upon the decision of the Telangana High Court in Writ Petition 26845/2017 in the case of Smt. Sujatha Cheruku & Anr. Vs. The State of Telangana, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2024 in the case of Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., and the decision of he Delhi High Court in WP No.3761/2018 in the case of Staff Selection Commission & Ors. Vs. Darpan Sharma.

We have perused the aforesaid judgments. However, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from those considered in the aforesaid judgments. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Telangana High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

Mr. Shukl, thereafter, relied upon Section 3(vi) and sub-section (ix) of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. The reliance on these provisions is misconceived. Section 3 of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 talks about unfair means. The present case, however, is not about unfair means. The present case is regarding wrong marking or bubbling of the Roll Number in the OMR sheet. The provisions of Section 3 of the said Act, therefore, have no application to the facts Central Administrative Tribunal^{of the present case.}

Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the present Original Application. We find no merit in the Original Application and the same is accordingly dismissed.

The Court Officer is directed to reseal the original OMR sheet and return it to Mr. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the respondents.

Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.