Saturday, 09, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Amar Dev Pandey vs The State Of Bihar Through The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1643 Patna

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1643 Patna
Judgement Date : 23 March, 2021

Patna High Court
Amar Dev Pandey vs The State Of Bihar Through The ... on 23 March, 2021
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8106 of 2021

     ======================================================

Amar Dev Pandey, son of Radhey Shyam Pandey, resident of Village - Hasanpura, P.O. - Nasirpur, P.S. - Gazipur, District- Uttar Pradesh, Pin Code - 232339.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. Secretary, Law Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna through its Secretary.

4. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.

5. Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.

6. Joint Secretary- cum - Controller of Examinations, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

     For the Petitioner/s    :     Mrs.Manisha Pandey, Advocate
                                   Ms. Shweta Pandey, Advocate
                                   Mr. Vishwanath Pandey, Advocate
     For the State           :     Mr. G.P. Ojha, GA-7
     For the Commission      :     Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY)

Date : 23-03-2021

Heard the parties.

In the present case, the petitioner is raising his grievance

with respect to three questions i.e. Question Nos. 58, 126 and 133 Patna High Court CWJC No.8106 of 2021 dt.23-03-2021

of Set -D of question booklet of 31st Bihar Judicial Services

(Preliminary) Competitive Examination.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has wrongly

been declared unsuccessful in the aforesaid Preliminary

Examination as his name could not find place in the list of

successful candidates.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Commission

has wrongly given 'B' is the correct answer of question no. 58 of

Booklet-D, but in fact 'C' is the correct answer. With regard to

question no.126 of the same booklet, the Commission has wrongly

given 'C' is the correct answer, but in fact 'D' is the correct

answer. With regard to question no. 133 of the same booklet, the

Commission has wrongly given 'C' is the correct answer, but in

fact 'B' is the correct answer.

After examination was conducted, the Commission has

issued a notice dated 19.12.2020 in its website, asking the

candidates that the model answer (provisional) would be available

on the website if any candidate has to raise objection with regard

to any item of model answer, they are at liberty to do the same, but

it must reach on or before 31.12.2020 at 5.00 P:M in close

envelope mentioning the advertisement number and that will be

looked into by the Expert and after discussing the objection so Patna High Court CWJC No.8106 of 2021 dt.23-03-2021

raised by the different candidates, final answer list will be

prepared. This is the standard procedure followed by all the

examining body.

Counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that he failed

to raise any objection on the ground that he was staying in village

due to Covid 19, but one thing is very much clear that it is

published in the website and the petitioner should have remained

vigilant as now in the village area internet is working or if internet

is not working, he should have remained cautious to find out when

the model answer is to be published and he should take care of.

It is admitted fact that the petitioner has not raised any

objection with regard to the model answer given in the notice and

after the final result, the writ application has been filed taking a

plea that due to pandemic, the petitioner was in village and, as

such, he could not take steps to raise objection, inasmuch as, in the

advertisement, there is no such procedure has been prescribed that

after the examination will be conducted, the model answer will be

published in the website asking the candidates to raise objection.

So, the Commission cannot change the procedure in the midway,

whereas the Commission says that it is a standard procedure,

which is adopted by every examining body in order to make the

candidate to sure the answer, which has been given as correct or Patna High Court CWJC No.8106 of 2021 dt.23-03-2021

incorrect answer, so opportunity has been given to each and every

candidate to suggest the answer, which is, according to the

candidate, is wrong, same will be looked into by the Expert body

and if it is found that the suggestion given by the candidate is

correct then the answer has to be modified accordingly.

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a

judgment in the case of Ashutosh Kumar Jha and Ors. Vs. The

State of Bihar and Ors. (LPA No. 1235 of 2016 with analogous

cases). In that case, the Court has decided the standard procedure

to be followed in resolving the dispute with regard to the objection

raised by the petitioners. In paragraph 17, it has specifically been

mentioned that "In our opinion, this Court, sitting in writ

jurisdiction exercising power of judicial review, should not go into

the correctness or otherwise of the opinion of Experts Body and it

is not required to sit over such judgment of Experts Body unless it

appears to be obnoxious. This Court is not required to go deep into

the correctness of answers on the basis of pleadings and counter

pleadings and come to its own conclusion about the correctness or

otherwise of the opinion of the Experts Body".

This Court, in judicial review, will not act as appellate body

to the decision taken by the expert body unless it is shown to be Patna High Court CWJC No.8106 of 2021 dt.23-03-2021

perverse as no reasonable person would arrive to such final

answer.

Admittedly the petitioner has failed to raise objection as

per the notice published in website of the Commission and now,

after the final result of preliminary test, he is raising objection

about the correctness of answers which he cannot be allowed to

take round and challenge the answers.

In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any

merit in this writ application and, accordingly, the same is

dismissed.

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

( Partha Sarthy, J) V.K.Pandey/-

AFR/NAFR                N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE                N.A.
Uploading Date          23.03.2021
Transmission Date       N.A.
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter