Jharkhand High Court
Puja Wife Of Manoj Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 10 February, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 116 of 2025
----
Puja wife of Manoj Kumar Gupta, resident of L.M. Vidya Kendra,
Hamidganj, PO Daltonganj, PS Daltonganj (Town), District
Palamu (Jharkhand); presently residing at Flat No.207-B, Crystal
Valley Apartment, Shiv Durga Mandir Lane, Ratu Road, P.O.
GPO, PS Kotwali, District Ranchi (Jharkhand).
... Petitioner
-versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, having its
Office at First Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home, Jail and Disaster Management,
Govt. of Jharkhand, having Office at Project Building, Dhurwa,
Ranchi.
3. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) through its
Secretary, having Office at Circular Road, PO PS Lalpur, District
Ranchi (Jharkhand).
4. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service
Commission (JPSC), having Office at Circular Road, PO PS
Lalpur, District Ranchi.
5. The Director of Prosecution, Prosecution Directorate, Govt. of
Jharkhand, having Office at Behind Indira Palace, Hinoo, PO PS
Doranda, District Ranchi (Jharkhand.)
... Respondents
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate
----
06/ 10.02.2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the respondents. Petitioner, in person, is also present and requested that she
wants to address this Court also on her grievance. Though the petitioner is
represented by the learned counsel, yet I heard the petitioner in person also.
2. During course of the argument, it is stated that marks in respect of
Question No.1 has not been properly allotted. She has seen the answer-sheet,
wherein she was awarded 5 marks, but while totaling only 3 marks were
added. She further submits that in precise writing, marks have not properly
allotted as no mark has been given for the heading, which normally is given in
all precise writing. It is also her case that in respect of Question No.8, full
marks being 3, yet, 2 marks were awarded in some of the answers. She
submits that if the answers were wrong petitioner should either get '0' or if the
answers were correct, full marks ought to have been awarded.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the JPSC submits that
the petitioner was given opportunity to go through the answer sheets. This
Court has got no jurisdiction to re-apprise or re-evaluate answer sheets and
cannot direct the examiner to award marks in a particular manner.
4. Petitioner, in this writ petition has prayed for commanding upon
the respondents to recalculate/re-total the marks and to re-evaluate,
particularly question No.1, 6 and 8 of the Nagpuri language paper of the Mains
Examination held pursuant to Advertisement No.03/2018.
5. Considering the prayer and the arguments, on the last date, i.e.,
22.01.2025, this Court called for answer-sheets of the petitioner, in order to
satisfy about the totaling of the marks, to assess whether the marks of the
petitioner was correctly added or not.
6. Today, the answer-sheet of the petitioner has been produced
before me. After going through the answer-sheets, I find that the petitioner has
got 30 marks in total. In the first question, the petitioner was awarded 3 marks.
Though, the numerical '3' written on the answer-sheet, if seen cursorily, will
give an impression that it is '5', but if it is seen properly, there is no doubt that
the marks awarded is '3' and not '5'. After totaling the marks, which the
petitioner has received in respect of the answers, I find that the total comes to
'30', which the examiner has awarded. There is no error in totaling.
7. So far as other contention of the petitioner is concerned, this
Court cannot re-evaluate the answers of the petitioner. This Court also does
not have jurisdiction to direct the examiner to evaluate a particular question in
a particular manner. It is absolutely within the domain of the examiner to award
marks and evaluate an answer-sheet in a particular manner.
8. After going through the question paper, I find that Question No.6
contained 5 marks and there is no division of marks mentioned in question
paper also. In question No.6, petitioner has obtained 3 marks. Thus, the
contention of the petitioner that the marks should have been divided is without
any basis. So far as question No.8 is concerned, I find that the same has been
evaluated and marks have been awarded for each of the answers. The
petitioner has answered 2 questions extra in question No.8, which was
naturally not evaluated, being extra. There is no error in the totaling of the
marks also.
9. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that there is a rule
or regulation governing this examination, which permits, re-evaluation of
answer-sheets or scrutiny of the answer-sheets as a matter of right. This Court
cannot re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer-sheets of a candidate as this Court
does not have an expertise in the academics, which is best left to the
examiner. Reference is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Others versus State of Uttar Pradesh &
Others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 and in the case of High Court of
Tripura versus Tirth Sarath Mukherjee & Others reported in (2019) 16 SCC
663 on this point.
10. Thus, when there is no error in the totaling of the marks and each
of the answers have been marked by the examiner, this Court cannot interfere
in the marking process nor can give its own view as to how each question has
to be weighed and marked.
11. In view of what has been observed and held above, I find no merit
in this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
