[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Vivekanand Das vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 9 February, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2026:JHHC:3411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4649 of 2024
-----
Vivekanand Das, aged about 31 years, son of Dashrath Das, resident of
Village Tharidulampur, P.O. Devsang, P.S. Kunda, District Deoghar,
Jharkhand. ....Petitioner(s).
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. &
P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Department of School Education and
Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
5. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through the Secretary, having
its office at Chai Bagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.Ο. and P.S. Namkum, District
Ranchi.
6. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission,
having its office at Chai Bagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. and P.S. Namkum,
District Ranchi. ...Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : AC to SC (L&C)-I.
For the JSSC : M/s Sanjoy Piparwall & Prince Kumar, Advocates.
--------
02/ 09.02.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the
following reliefs:-
i. For direction upon the respondent Jharkhand Staff
Selection Commission to allot appropriate marks against the
question, which were answered correctly by the petitioner by
opting the correct option in the objective type paper pursuant
to Advertisement No. 02 of 2023 (PGTTCE 2023) for
appointment for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in
History subject.
ii. For direction upon the respondent Jharkhand Staff
Selection Commission to bring on record secured storage for
answer to question by the petitioner, which is saved in the
form of DVD by the Examination Conducting Outsource
Agency.
iii. For keeping a seat vacant in the category of PGT History
for the petitioner during pendency of the present writ
application.
2. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) issued an
advertisement being Advertisement no. 02 of 2023 to recruit Post Graduate
Trained Teachers (PGTTCE-2023). The examination was conducted in
Computer Based Test (CBT) mode through empanelled agencies between 18
August 2023 and 10 September 2023.The petitioner applied for the History
subject and appeared in the examination. After the exam, JSSC published
the provisional answer key on 20 September 2023 and invited objections
from candidates. Later, JSSC stated that experts had reviewed the objections
and released a final answer key. However, it was found that due to some
technical or software error, the options chosen by candidates were shown
incorrect/ got jumbled. Because of this issue, JSSC revised some answers
after expert review. According to the petitioner, due to jumbling of options, the
petitioner's correct answers were treated as wrong, affecting his merit and
selection.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the errors
occurred due to technical faults of JSSC or its empanelled agency, not due to
any mistake of the petitioner. JSSC failed to properly consider the petitioner's
objections and correct the mistakes. He further submits that for the same
issue, several writ applications were filed before this Hon'ble Court, wherein
prayer was made for direction upon the respondent authorities to consider
the grievance as there is irregularities with regard to the final result published
by respondent Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. He also submits that
action of the respondent Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission in not
considering the objection raised by the petitioner with respect to change
occurred due to jumbled option of his responses in the final answer key and
not taking the correct measures for redressing the same, is arbitrary and
highhandedness.
4. The learned counsel for respondents submits that recruitment
was conducted in a fair, transparent, and uniform manner through Computer
Based Test (CBT) mode by duly empanelled and technically competent
examination agencies. He further submits that adequate safeguards were in
place to ensure accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of the examination
process. He also submits that candidates were given sufficient opportunity to
raise objections within the stipulated time and all objections received were
carefully examined by subject experts.
5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I
am of the view that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner was
treated differently from other candidates. The petitioner's complaint is mainly
that his answers in the computer-based test were wrongly evaluated because
of a technical or software issue. Courts should not themselves re-check or
reassess answer sheets, as they do not have academic expertise. Hon'ble
Supreme court in case of Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. reported in
(2018) 2 SCC 357 in paragraph 30 has held 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.
6. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
facts of the case, I find that in matter relating to evaluation of answer sheets
and determination of correctness of answers, the scope of judicial review is
extremely limited. This Court also notes that several candidates participated
in the same examination under the same conditions and the petitioner has
failed to establish that the alleged technical issue vitiated the entire selection
process or that the respondent Commission acted in a discriminatory or
arbitrary manner.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
8. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.
09th February, 2026 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
Anu/-Cp2.
Uploaded on: 11.02.2026
