30.03.2026 23 sdas WPA 761 of 2026 Susmita Kundu Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta Ms. Sinjini Chakraborti Mr. Arindam Shit …. for the petitioner Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, ld. AGP Mr. Nilay Baran Mandal …. for the State Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv. Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharaya Ms. Pramiti Bandopadhyay Mr. Arka Kumar Nag Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh ….. for the WBCSSC 1. Let affidavit-of-service and photocopy of the OMR answer sheet, as produced before this Court, be kept on record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that their marks have not been properly allotted despite rightly answering the questions. 3. Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned senior Advocate appearing for the West Bengal Central School Service Commission has produced the photocopy of the original OMR answer sheet to show that some answers were incorrectly shaded. He 2 submits that the computer has failed to read such answers correctly. 4. Mr. Dasgupta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the OMR sheet should be evaluated manually. 5. Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for the Commission, has produced a photocopy of the OMR answer sheet. From the said answer sheet it is clear that there are multiple shadings in the answer to the question no. 53. In view of such shadings to both the answers A and B, it is quite apparent that the computer could not read the said answer script. In view thereof, a mark for question no. 53 has not been given to the petitioner. 6. Even though Mr. Dasgupta has made a prayer for production of the original OMR answer sheet in view of the clear picture, which is quite visible from the photostat copy, as produced by the Commission, I do not find any requirement for production of the original OMR answer sheet. 7. The correct method of shading is clearly mentioned as the top of the OMR sheet. Only one circle, out of the four circles, is required to be shaded. The other circles cannot have even a dot over there. The moment there is any mark in any 3 of the other circles, the computer fails to read such answer as correct. 8. There is no insinuation or allegation challenging the marking system or that the marking system was vitiated. Annexure P-2 to the petition, as argued by Mr. Dasgupta, does not contain a shading to answer B of question no. 53. 9. However, the copy, as handed up by Mr. Bandopadhyay in respect of the OMR answer sheet of the petitioner is kept on record. It contains clear shading of option A and partial shading of option B. It is for this reason that the computer would not read and/or take into account the correct answer to the question no. 53. 10. The prayer of the petitioner for checking up the answer sheet manually cannot be accepted. The answer sheet is prepared to be checked by the computer. The answer scripts of all other candidates have been assessed by the computer. There is no reason as to why there shall be a departure in the mode of checking of the answer sheet of the petitioner. 11. The Court does not find any error on the part of the Commission. 12. The writ petition, thus, fails and is hereby dismissed. 13. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 4 14. All parties are to act on the server copy of this order, duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)