The Allahabad High Court has emphasized that the fairness of a competitive examination extends to adhering to prescribed guidelines. Failure to fully comply with instructions, such as neglecting to have the computer assess the OMR sheet based on subject shifts, constitutes a legal oversight.

In this decision, the court has declined to intervene in the petitions contesting the Secretary Examination Regulatory Authority's (PNP) directive to investigate the announced result of Assistant Teacher Recruitment, and subsequently issue a new result while nullifying the previous one. Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamsheri issued this ruling while dismissing the petition filed by 177 candidates, including Ranjit Kumar Yadav.

Assistant teachers were appointed under a government directive issued on February 19, 2021. The examination results were announced on November 15, 2021, with all petitioners being declared successful. However, a revised result was issued on September 6, 2022, which did not include the petitioners. This discrepancy was challenged by the petitioners, who argued that no errors were made in filling out the OMR sheets, a claim which was substantiated by the investigation.

The government contended that the OMR sheets were incorrectly filled out by the petitioners, with topics left incomplete, leading to the computer's inability to process them. Furthermore, it was argued that the petitioners failed to accurately specify the subjects and could not provide satisfactory explanations. As a result, they did not adhere to the prescribed guidelines and are not eligible for relief. The court stated that the declared result underwent scrutiny to ensure the fairness of the examination.

The Allahabad High Court has sought information from the Basic Education Council regarding the failure to comply with the order to advertise counseling and conduct counseling for the remaining 12,091 posts out of the 72,825 assistant teachers recruitment. The court had previously instructed counseling to be conducted last month, resolving a dispute pending for 12 years, with results to be released by the last week of February. A contempt petition has been filed for non-compliance with this order.

Petitioners' advocate Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi told the court that the state government and the Secretary Basic Education Council have filed a special appeal against the said order, which is to be heard soon. He demanded to postpone the hearing of this case for the time being.

In response, the court has instructed that copies of the petition be provided to the legal representatives of both the state government and the Basic Education Council. Additionally, the advocate representing the council has been directed to furnish relevant information pertaining to the case. The next hearing for the case has been scheduled for March 5th.