Ruby Kumari Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1029 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ruby Kumari Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 12 February, 2026

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                                 2026:JHHC:3915-DB




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             L.P.A. No. 346 of 2025
Ruby Kumari Gupta, aged about 33 years, Wife of Ranjan Prasad Ram,
Daughter of - Deonarayan Prasad Gupta, Present Resident of-New Saket
Nagar, Pokhar Toli, Hinoo, Ranchi, P.O.- Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
Permanent Resident of Village-Ghat Amarpur P.O- Korka Ghat, P.S.
Pathargama, District- Godda, Jharkhanad, 814133.
                                      ...    ...     ...      Appellant
                        Versus
1.    The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government
of Jharkhand, At Project Building Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S-Dhurwa, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2.   The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commision, Kalinagar,
Chaibagan, Namkum, Ranchi. P.O and PS Namkum, District- Ranchi,
Jharkhand, 834010.
                                      ...    ...     ... Respondents
                           ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

---------

For the Appellant: Mr. P.P. N. Roy, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ranjan Prasad Ram, Advocate For the Resp-State: Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G-II For the Resp-JSSC: Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate

---------

03/Dated: 12.02.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Appeal challenges the learned Single Judge's order dated

28.04.2025 dismissing the appellant's W.P.(C) No. 1487 of 2024, in which

the appellant had primarily complained about the two answer keys in the

competitive examination conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection

Commission for selection to the posts of Post Graduate Trained Teacher.

3. The learned senior counsel for the appellant, apart from alleging

malafides, has, in a written note now handed over to us, listed six main

points for consideration. Upon perusing the same, we are satisfied that

these points are not significantly different from the points set out in

2026:JHHC:3915-DB

paragraph 8 of the learned Single Judge's impugned order. Therefore, we

transcribe paragraph 8 of the learned Single Judge's order for the

convenience of reference:

"8. The main contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows:

1. The change in the answer of question ID no. 170440 is arbitrary as it was taken to be correct by the three answer keys after verification by three different expert committees.

2. With regard to question ID No. 170482 three options of the answer of the said question are correct as per text book of H.L. Ahuja and B.K. Jhingan and the respondent authorities have never denied that answer supplied by the petitioner is not correct as such it shall be deemed to be admitted that the answer selected by the petitioner is correct.

3. He also contended that the Petitioner is a female candidate and one vacancy was reserved for female category candidate in EBC-I category and no female candidate has been recommended; as such she is entitled to be appointed against the 14th position in view of the fact that one seat had been horizontally reserved for female candidate."

4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that insofar as

question I.D. No. 170440 is concerned, the change of the key answer was

arbitrary. Insofar as question I.D. No. 170482, the issue of the correct key

answer remains pending. He submitted that the appellant's answer

aligned with the textbook answer, and therefore, the appellant should

have been given full marks for the answers given by her to the above two

questions.

5. Though the forceful plea of malafides was made jointly by the

learned senior counsel and his junior, we find that the pleadings of

malafides are woefully lacking. It is very easy to make allegations of

2026:JHHC:3915-DB

malafides but not so easy to make out such allegations. In this case,

except for a forced reference to malafides, nothing was placed on record

that would show, even remotely, how any malafides were involved on the

part of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, the domain experts, or

the agency that conducted this examination. In fact, the records show that

the appellant secured 288 marks out of 300, and the last selected

candidate secured 290 marks. All these factors negate the charge of

malafides.

6. Be that as it may, upon considering the contentions of the learned

senior counsel and the learned counsel for the Jharkhand Staff Selection

Commission and further, upon perusing the material on record and the

learned Single Judge's impugned order, we are satisfied that no case has

been made out warranting interference. The reasoning of the learned

Single Judge is reflected in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the impugned

order, and we are not persuaded to take any different view in this matter.

7. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has relied upon and even

quoted the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran

Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2018)

2 SCC 357 and the learned Single Judge's view, aligns with the view

taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said matter.

8. The learned counsel for the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission

relied upon Shubham Pal & Ors. Vs. Staff Selection Commission &

Another, Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 21999 of 2024,

decided on 03.02.2026, which again quotes and reiterates the principles

in Ran Vijay Singh (supra).

9. At this stage, we also deem it profitable to quote paragraphs 30 to

32 of Ran Vijay Singh (supra). They read as follows:

"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

2026:JHHC:3915-DB

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.

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

2026:JHHC:3915-DB

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."

10. After quoting Ran Vijay Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, in the case of Shubham Pal (Supra), held that interference in such

matters should be rare and only in a situation where the petitioner

succeeds in demonstrating some palpable mistake. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held that the Courts should normally presume the correctness

of the key answers and proceed on that assumption. Further, even in the

event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather

than to the candidate. In such matters, sympathy or compassion plays no

role. The Court should be very loath to direct or not direct re-evaluation of

the answer-sheets.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also approves the dictum in Ran Vijay

Singh (supra), where it is held that even if any error is committed by the

examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The

entire examination process should not be derailed merely because some

candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied, or because they perceive an

injustice arising from an erroneous question or answer. All candidates

suffer equally, though some may suffer more; that cannot be avoided, as

mathematical precision is not always possible.

2026:JHHC:3915-DB

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in fact, criticises the High Courts by

pointing out that it was rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there was interference by the Courts in the

result of the examination. The Court noted that such interference places

the examination authorities in an unenviable position, subjecting them to

scrutiny. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination

process concludes with uncertainty.

13. The Court noted that while there may be no doubt that the

candidates put in 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 may reveal lapses at a later stage, but the Court must consider the

internal checks and balances in place by the examination authorities

before interfering with the efforts of the candidates who have successfully

participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The Court

noted that such an unsatisfactory situation arising out of interference does

not work to anybody's advantage, and such a state of uncertainty results

in confusion being worse confounded. The overall impact is that public

interest suffers.

14. In this case, after the key answers were published, objections were

invited from the candidates. In light of the objections, at least 3 to 4 expert

committees deliberated on the matter. Based upon their reports, the key

answers were finalised. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again

held that such matters should be left to the domain experts and the

Courts should be loath to interfere. The learned Single Judge's approach

is entirely consistent with the approach directed in a catena of decisions

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

15. The final contention of the appellant was that no female candidate

has been recommended in the EBC-I Category, and if the appellant is

given the marks for the two above-referred questions, then the appellant

2026:JHHC:3915-DB

would be selected, and the reserved posts for the Female Category

candidate in the EBC-I Category would be filled in.

16. Firstly, the above contention is quite irrelevant. Assuming there was

no successful candidate, the marks cannot be arbitrarily increased merely

to ensure that at least one candidate is selected to fill the reserved post.

The rules or procedures do not contemplate or permit such an exercise.

Such a fact can never be a relevant consideration.

17. Secondly, the learned Single judge has noted that the records show

that out of the 13 recommended candidates, two female candidates have

already been recommended for the EBC-I Category. These candidates

have admittedly secured higher marks than the appellant. Therefore, even

this contention ought to fail and was correctly rejected by the learned

Single Judge.

18. At the persuasion of the learned counsel for the appellant, we

examined the two disputed questions and the key answers. From such

examination, at least we do not think that any case is made out to deviate

from the opinion expressed by no less than three expert committees,

even though such opinion may not align with the appellant's opinion. In

any event, we are not the domain experts, and this is not a case where

the opinion of the domain experts can be regarded as demonstrably

wrong or manifestly arbitrary to warrant interference.

19. For all the above reasons, we find no merit in this Appeal and we

dismiss the same. No costs.

20. Pending Interlocutory Applications do not survive and are disposed

of.

(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) February 12, 2026 A.F.R. APK/VK

Uploaded on 13.02.2026