[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Rahul Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 December, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:38000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No.812 of 2024
-----
Rahul Kumar Gupta, S/o Shri Ramesh Prasad Gupta, R/o S.P. College Road,
Rasikpur, near Central Bank of India, Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District
Dumka, Jharkhand
.... Petitioner(s).
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Chairman, having its
office at Circular Road, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
3.The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi,
having its office at Circular Road, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi.
... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Durga C. Mishra, Advocate
For the Resp-State : Mr. Divyam, AC to S.C. IV
For the Resp- JPSC : Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Durgesh Agrawal, Advocate
.........
07 / 18.12.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a direction upon
the respondents to re-evaluate the answer paper of main examination
of the petitioner in respect of paper-I and paper-II (Subject Code 06
and 07) of Combined Assistant Engineer, Direct Recruitment
Competitive Examination of 2019, on the ground as per the petitioner
that he is entitled for more marks than what he has received. Further,
he has prayed that there are several cuttings in the answer sheets made
by the examiner while evaluating, which create doubts.
3. Considering the submission made by the petitioner, I had called
for the answer-sheets in sealed cover. I find nothing glaring in the
answer-sheet in support the submission of the petitioner. There is one
question, which was answered by the petitioner in which earlier some
marks was granted, but later on it was corrected. There is no malice in
the said correction. Further all the answers have been evaluated and
number has been assigned for all the answers.
4. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of
Constitution of India cannot re-evaluate the answer sheets. Further,
the re-evaluation and assigning marks to the answer is domain of the
subject experts and this Court cannot interfere with the same.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh v.
State of U.P., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 at para No.30 has
crystalized the principles about of re-evaluation, which is hereunder:-
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.
6. In view of the facts of this case and the judgment cited above, I
find no merit in this writ petition, thus the same is dismissed.
7. The answer-sheet which was sent in the sealed cover be sealed
again by the office and handed over to the learned counsel for the
respondents.
8. Though this writ petition should have been dismissed with an
exemplary cost, but considering the status of the petitioner, who is
unemployed, I am not imposing any cost upon him.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
18th December, 2025
R.S./
Uploaded on 19 /12/2025.
