Allahabad High Court
WRIA/9774/2026 of RAJAT YADAV Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS on 8 October 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 9774 of 2026 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Navin Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gagan Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 &4, and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 2.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 9774 of 2026
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Mr. Navin Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gagan Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 &4, and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, while filling the OMR Sheet, the petitioner inadvertently marked the Question Booklet Number incorrectly. It is contended that the error is purely inadvertent and constitutes a curable defect. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the invigilator to permit the petitioner to rectify the said mistake at the relevant time.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4 Mr. Gagan Mehta, placing emphasis upon the instructions contained at page 101 of the paper book, which accompanied the OMR Sheet, submits that Instruction Nos. 6 and 7 are relevant for the controversy involved. The said instructions accompanying the OMR Sheet are reproduced hereinbelow: "6. अभ्यर्थी उत्तर-पत्र (OMR Sheet) पर अपना अनुक्रमांक, विषय का नाम, विषय कोड, प्रश्न पुस्तिका संख्या एवं हल किए गए प्रश्नों की संख्या स्वच्छतापूर्वक निर्दिष्ट स्थान पर लिखें तथा संबंधित गोले को भरें, अन्यथा उत्तर-पत्रक का मूल्यांकन नहीं किया जाएगा और संपूर्ण जिम्मेदारी स्वयं अभ्यर्थी की होगी।
7. अभ्यर्थी सही उत्तर निर्दिष्ट करते हुए उनमें से केवल एक गोले अथवा बबल को उत्तर-पत्र पर काले बॉल पॉइंट पेन से पूरा गहरा कर दें। एक से अधिक उत्तर देने की दशा में उत्तर को गलत माना जाएगा एवं उसे जाँचा नहीं जाएगा।"
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that, as per the instructions placed at page No. 101 along with the OMR Sheet, Clauses 6 and 7 do not provide for grant of any such relief to the petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Navin Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Gagan Mehta Rajat Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
It is submitted that, in case the roll number, subject, subject code, Question Booklet number, or any other requisite particulars are not filled correctly, the candidature of the petitioner cannot be considered. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in a similar matter in Writ-A No. 10152 of 2026 (Manoj Kumar Paliwal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others).
5. In view of the above, the writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 9, 2026 Jitendra/- WRIA No. 9774 of 2026 2 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad