HIGH COURT OF 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. 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. अभ्यथीर् उत्तर-पत्र (OMR Sheet) पर अपना अनुक्रमांक, िवषय का नाम, िवषय कोड, प्रश्न पुिस्तका संख्या एवं हल िकए गए प्रश्नों की संख्या स्वच्छतापूवर्क िनिदष्ट स्थान पर िलखें तथा संबंिधत गोले को भरें, अन्यथा उत्तर-पत्रक का मूल्यांकन नहीं िकया जाएगा और संपूणर् िजम्मेदारी स्वयं अभ्यथीर् की होगी। 7. अभ्यथीर् सही उत्तर िनिदष्ट करते हुए उनमें से के वल एक गोले अथवा बबल को उत्तर-पत्र पर काले बॉल पॉइंट पेन से पूरा गहरा कर दें। एक से अिधक 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