Jharkhand High Court
Prabhat Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 4 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2485 of 2024
Prabhat Kumar, aged about 37 years, Son of Mohan Matho, Resident village
Masu, P.O. Hesal, P.S.-Angara, Ranchi, Jharkhand-835103
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, having its office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa and District- Ranchi
2. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Admiistration and Rajbhasa, having its
office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S.- Dhurwa and District- Ranchi
3. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, having office
at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834001
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having
office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District.-Ranchi, Jharkhand-
834001 ..... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
Mr. Amartya Choubey, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Ruby Yadav, AC to SC-VI
For the JPSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
---------
04/ Dated: 04.06.2024
Learned counsel for the petitioner appeared through video conferencing
whereas learned counsel for the JPSC and learned counsel for the State are
physically present before this Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
I.A. No. 5334 of 2024:
3. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of
the present writ petition.
4. Considering the reason assigned at paragraph Nos. 5, 6 and 7 to the
interlocutory application, the prayer made herein is allowed.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 5334 of 2024 is disposed of.
I.A. No. 5333 of 2024:
5. The instant interlocutory application has been filed praying to allow the
petitioner to appear in the Mains Examination scheduled to be held from
07.06.2024 in pursuant to the Advertisement No.27/2017, subject to the
outcome of the instant writ petition.
6. The factual matrix of the present case which required to be enumerated
reads as under -
Jharkhand Public Service Commission (J.P.S.C), respondent herein
published an advertisement being Advertisement No. 27/2017 for filling up of
10 backlog vacancies in Jharkhand Police Service, Jharkhand Jail Service and
Jharkhand Planning Service. Subsequently, on 21.01.2024 Preliminary
Examination (PT) was conducted by the J.P.S.C, consisting of two compulsory
papers i.e. General Studies Paper-I and General Studies Paper-II. Each of the
question paper consisted of 100 objective type questions (multiple choices)
each of 2 marks.
7. On 30.01.2024, J.P.S.C released 1stanswer key of Preliminary
Examination and asked for objections/suggestions qua the key answers from
the candidates. J.P.S.C after considering above objections/suggestions,
published a revised answers of few questions for General Studies Paper-I and
II, by which answers of 12 questions in General Studies Paper-I and answers
of 7 questions in General Studies Paper-II got revised by J.P.S.C. Thereafter,
J.P.S.C declared the result of Preliminary Examination (PT) and also declared
the cut off marks 254 for BC-I, 240 for BC-II and 244 for ST.
8. Petitioner being one of the candidates, appeared in aforesaid
Preliminary Examination, but having grievance that his entire
suggestions/objections qua the key answers have not been considered by JPSC
and made contention that, had these suggested answers been considered by the
J.P.S.C, then petitioner would definitely be qualified in Preliminary
Examination (PT). With above grievance, the present writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court at page
no. 34 of the paper book to this writ petition and submitted that in General
Studies Paper -I, petitioner has objected/suggested answers of 6 questions to
the J.P.S.C out of which only 2 answers to the questions have been considered
by the JPSC and remaining 4 questions i.e. question no. 35, 92, 98 and 99 of
question booklet of series D has not been considered by J.P.S.C, despite
annexing relevant documents which clearly shows that the answers to
aforesaid 4 questions as given by J.P.S.C is not correct at all.
Similarly, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out at page no.35 of
the paper book to this writ petition where petitioner has raised objections to
key answers of question nos. 4 and 53 of General Studies Paper - II but
J.P.S.C has considered only one answer that too not as suggested by petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner for justifying the above contentions
has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of
Judicature at Patna in the case of Manoj Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in
2012 SCC OnLine Pat 1250 wherein it has been directed to the BPSC to re-
declare the result of the PT Examination after afresh evaluation on the basis of
recommendation of the Expert Committee.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further tried to convince this Court
that, admittedly in normal circumstances Court should not interfere with the
process of examination, but where the answer to the question as finalized by
J.P.S.C is palpably wrong or no Expert Opinion is required for consideration
of answer to that question, in that eventuality, Court ought to interfere. Upon
aforesaid premise, prayer has been made to allow the petitioner to appear in
Mains Examination which is going to be held from 07.06.2024 to 09.06.2024,
subject to outcome of this writ petition.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the J.P.S.C vehemently opposed the
prayer of petitioner on the premise that grievance of the petitioner cannot and
should not be entertained by this Court as after seeking suggestions/objections
from the candidates, J.P.S.C constituted Expert Committee and after
considering all the objections/suggestions the said committee came up with
the revised answer which is at page No. 45 and 46 of the paper book to this
writ petition.
13. Learned counsel further pointed out that out of 6 answers, 2 answers
have been considered by Expert Committee so far as General Studies Paper - I
of Preliminary Examination is concerned, whereas, out of 2 questions, one has
been considered from General Studies Paper- II, at behest of petitioner and
other candidates but not according to the petitioner.
14. It has also been pointed out on behalf of J.P.S.C that on the first date of
hearing i.e. 15.05.2024, no one turned up on behalf of petitioner. Learned
counsel urged that, if this Hon'ble Court would give indulgence to the
petitioner, then JPSC would have to postpone the upcoming Mains
examination as result of P.T has to be revised and it would definitely cause
delay in conclusion of process of selection and cause prejudice to the interest
of other candidates, as the Mains examination is going to be conducted from
07.06.2024, just after 3 days from today.
In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
fence sitter are not entitle for benefit as Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others reported in
(2015) 1 SCC 347, as such, there is no need for J.P.S.C to revise the result of
P.T and the candidate/candidates who has/have approached this Court, only
can be allowed to appear in Mains examination.
15. Learned counsel for the J.P.S.C to fortify the above contention placed
reliance upon the following judgments:
1. Ran Vijay Singh and others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others
(2018) 2 SCC 357.
2. Vikesh Kumar Gupta and another versus State of Rajasthan & others
(2021) 2 SCC 309
3. Mohit Sharma vs. State of Jharkhand, L.P.A. No. 133 of 2021
16. This Court has gone through the writ petition and other material
available on record and given thoughtful consideration to the arguments and
judicial pronouncements advanced on behalf of the petitioner as well as
Jharkhand Public Service Commission (J.P.S.C).
17. This court has considered the case of Ran Vijay Singh (Supra),
wherein it has been held that in the absence of any statute or regulation, the re-
evaluation of the answer key is not permissible. Relevant para reads as under -
"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only
propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:
30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or
scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the
authority conducting the examination may permit it;
30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an
answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may
permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very
clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a
process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases
that a material error has been committed;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the
answer sheets of a candidate--it has no expertise in the matter
and academic matters are best left to academics;
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key
answers and proceed on that assumption; and
30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the
examination authority rather than to the candidate.
18. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar
Gupta (Supra) has reiterated the ratio laid in the case of Ran Vijay Singh
(Supra) wherein it has been held that Court ought not to step into shoes of
experts/ academicians and it is not permissible to re-evaluate or scrutinize the
answer sheets of a candidate by the Court. It has also been held that the entire
examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some
candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having
been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer.
Relevant paragraph reads as under -
"14. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit,
this Court has deprecated the practice of re-evaluation and
scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in
academic matters. It is not permissible for the High Court to
examine the question papers and answer sheets itself,
particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se
merit of the candidates (H.P. Public Service
Commission v. Mukesh Thakur [H.P. Public Service
Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759: (2010) 2
SCC (L&S) 286: 3 SCEC 713]). Courts have to show
deference and consideration to the recommendation of the
expert committee who have the expertise to evaluate and
make recommendations (see Basavaiah v. H.L.
Ramesh [Basavaiah v. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372:
(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 640]).
15. Examining the scope of judicial review with regards
to re-evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay
Singh v. State of U.P. [Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P.,
(2018) 2 SCC 357: (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] held that the
court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets
of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the
academic matters are best left to academics. This Court in
the said judgment further held as follows: (Ran Vijay Singh
case [Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 :
(2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] , SCC pp. 369-70, paras 31-32)
"31. On our part we may add that sympathy or
compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing
or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error
is committed by the examination authority, the complete body
of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does
not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are
disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having
been caused to them by an erroneous question or an
erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some
might suffer more but that cannot be helped since
mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court
has shown one way out of an impasse--exclude the suspect or
offending question."
19. Considering the above legal pronouncements by Hon'ble Apex Court, it
is required to be noted that there is no any Statute, Rule or Regulation
governing the examination by J.P.S.C which permits the re-evaluation of the
answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet is available on record or brought
to the notice of this Court at the time of argument by learned counsel for the
petitioner. Since, the issue of re-evaluation which this Court cannot determine
at this juncture, as it is the core issue of the main petition.
This Court is of considered view that prima facie in the absence of any
Statute or Rule or Regulation, which could primarily support the claim made
by the petitioner in the instant matter and allowing the prayer on the basis of
plea made by the petitioner being dissatisfied for non consideration of his
entire suggested answers by the J.P.S.C can cause delay the process of
examination which shall prejudice the interest of all other candidates, as such
this Court negate the prayer made by the petitioner.
20. This Court is of considered view that there is no material brought on
record regarding permissibility of re-evaluation and Expert Committee
constituted by J.P.S.C considered the suggested answers by the candidates,
thereafter, result of P.T. was declared, therefore, in view of above stated
judicial pronouncement by Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court does not find
any merit in the prayer made in the instant Interlocutory Application.
21. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5333 of 2024 is hereby dismissed.
W.P.(S) No. 2485 of 2024:
22. Put up this case before the regular Bench.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Pramanik/
