Jharkhand High Court

Dr. Aakanksha Kalia (Advocate) vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 October, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                   2025:JHHC:30876-DB




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              W.P. (S) No. 4674 of 2025
Dr. Aakanksha Kalia (ADVOCATE), D/o N.K Kalia, aged about 37 years
R/o Cilinic Site NO.1, Commercial Complex No.1, OPP, Redcross
Bhavan, Sector 17, Huda, P.O & P.S, Yamuna Nagar, District:-Yamuna
Nagar Haryana, 135003            ...    ...     ...     Petitioner
                       Versus
1.    The State of Jharkhand
2.    The High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Through its Registrar
General, High Court of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi - 834002.
                                     ... ...          ... Respondents
                         ---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                         ---------
For the Petitioner:      In person
For the Resp-State:      Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G-II
                       ---------
05/Dated: 07.10.2025
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. (Oral)

1. The instant writ petition has been filed for grant of the following

substantive relief:-

"a) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned result dated 13/08/2025 (Annexure-4) of the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (District Judge) Mains Examination, 2025, published pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2024/Apptt., in so far as it excludes the petitioner without disclosure of cut-off marks or detailed results;

AND/or

b) For issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), or a writ in the nature of Mandamus to Direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's representation seeking disclosure of cut-off marks, detailed marks, and related reliefs, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

AND/or

c) For issuance of an appropriate writ(S), order(S) or direction(S) in nature of mandamus for directing the respondent authorities to provisionally include the petitioner in the list of candidates called for the viva voce examination for the post of District Judge (Superior Judicial Service) pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2024/Apptt., subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition;

AND/or

d) Direct the respondent authorities to dispose of the petitioner's RTI application filed under Section 7(i) of the RTI Act, 2005, in

-1 of 5-

2025:JHHC:30876-DB

accordance with law, and supply the information sought therein within a reasonable period of time;

AND/or

e) Pending final disposal of this writ petition, stay the ongoing viva voce process pursuant to the impugned result, and in the alternative, direct the respondents to reserve one seat in the selection process for the petitioner, subject to the outcome of the present writ petition; "

2. On 06.10.2025, we directed the Registrar (Administration) of this

Court to produce the answer sheets of the petitioner and the same is

placed in sealed cover which is opened in presence of the petitioner-In

person.

3. After opening the answer sheet, we have tallied the marks that

have been awarded for the attempted questions and having calculated

the same, we find no error in calculation of such marks. We have further

noticed that marks have been awarded for all the questions that had been

attempted. Since the petitioner was far behind in the merit list obviously

she could not have been called for viva voce/interview.

4. The petitioner would however, argue that since she had attempted

the questions fairly well therefore, the answer sheets should be re-

evaluated either by the Court itself which is well conversant with the law

or send the answer sheets to some expert body for re-evaluation.

5. We find no merit in this contention as it is more than settled that in

absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations

the Court should not generally directly re-evaluation and as regards the

evaluation by the Court, it is not permissible for the High Court to examine

the question papers and the answer sheets itself, as held by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs.

Mukesh Thakur and another, (2010) 6 SCC 759.

-2 of 5- 2025:JHHC:30876-DB

6. Law on the subject has otherwise been well settled in the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh and others

Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2018) 2 SCC 357 wherein it has

been observed 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.

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.

-3 of 5- 2025:JHHC:30876-DB

32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination -- whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."

7. Similar reiteration of law can be found in the judgment rendered by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Public Service

Commission, through its Chairman and another Vs. Rahul Singh and

Another, (2018) 7 SCC 254; in the case of Bihar Staff Selection

Commission and others Vs. Arun Kumar and others, (2020) 6 SCC

362 and a three Judge Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Vikesh Kumar Gupta and another Vs. State of Rajasthan and others,

(2021) 2 SCC 309.

-4 of 5- 2025:JHHC:30876-DB

8. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this

writ petition and the same is dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application,

if any, stands disposed of.