Patna High Court
Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust C/O Amit ... vs Bihar Public Service Commission on 28 March, 2025
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Partha Sarthy, Ashutosh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.752 of 2025
======================================================
Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust, Through its Trustee Namely Amit Kumar, age
around 22 Years, Male Gender Male, S/o Sh. Rabinder Tiwari, Office at
17A/56, Triveni Plaza, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Bihar Public Service Commission through Chairman, Patna
2. Union of India through Cabinet Secretary, Delhi.
3. Central Bureau of Investigation through Director, Delhi
4. Government of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Patna.
5. Home Department Govt. of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Patna.
6. Director General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 369 of 2025
======================================================
1. Pappu Kumar Son of Manoj Kumar, resident of village, P.O. and P.S.-
Bhadouns, District- Sheikhpura, Bihar- 811107.
2. Sandeep Kumar Singh @ Sandeep Kumar, son of Madan Singh, resident of
village- Rampurwa, P.O. and P.S.-Mehsi, District- East Champaran, Bihar -
845426.
3. Ravish Kumar Raj, son of Vijay Narayan Sinha, resident of village-
Raghunibigha, P.O. -Kormathu, P.S.- Belaganj, District- Gaya, Bihar -
804424.
4. Himanshu Raj, son of Satish Kumar Singh, resident of village- Bastipur,
P.O.- Manikpur, P.S.- Indrapuri, District- Rohtas, Bihar - 821305.
5. Subhash Kumar Thakur @ Subhash Thakur, son of Ravindra Thakur,
resident of village- Basra, P.O. and P.S- Jaintpur, District- Muzaffarpur,
Bihar - 843123.
6. Khushi Kumari, Daughter of Ram Pravesh Chaudhary, resident of village-
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
2/76
Dharmchak, P.O. and P.S.- Mansi, District- Khagaria, Bihar- 851214.
7. Gautam Kumar, son of Umashankar Prasad, resident of village- Balwapar,
P.O.- Sirsi Dihra, P.S.- Harnaut, District- Nalanda, Bihar-803110.
8. Rajan Kumar Tiwari, son of Divakar Kumar Tiwari, resident of village-
Basaura, P.O.- Amba, P.S.- Kutumba, District- Aurangabad, Bihar - 824111.
9. Deepak Kumar, son of Ramdaras Sahani, resident of village- Tilbihata, P.O.-
Berua, P.S.-Saraiya, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar - 843122.
10. Chandan Kumar, son of Dharmendra Kumar Nira, resident of At and P.O.
and P.S.- Nirmali, District- Supaul, Bihar- 847452.
11. Deepshikha, Shailendra Pd. Singh, resident of village and P.O.-
Chandrahatti, P.S.- Kudhni, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
12. Satyam Raj, son of Manish Raj resident of Ward No.- 11, Nalanda Nagar
Panchayat, P.S. and District- Nalanda, Bihar- 803111.
13. Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Kumar Kharwar, son of Dadan Prasad, resident of
Quarter No.- 68/400, 2, Near Rajkiye Navin Middle School, Rajbanshi
Nagar, Phulwari, P.S.- Phulwari, District- Patna, Bihar- 800023.
14. Akash Anand, son of Vivekanand Kumar, resident of village- Ramghat, P.O.-
Khaira Koshpur, P.S.- Narpatganj, District- Araria, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar.
3. The Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, 15 Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Jawaharlal Nehru
Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
5. The Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
3/76
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 978 of 2025
======================================================
Ajit Kumar, Son of Ranjit Bind, Resident of Village - Amaiya, P.S.- Asarganj,
District - Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, Bailey Road,
Patna.
4. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.
5. The Secretary, B.P.S.C, Bailey Road, Patna.
6. The Exam Controller, B.P.S.C, Bailey Road, Patna.
7. The Economic Offence Unit, Patna.
8. Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna.
9. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1437 of 2025
======================================================
1. Prashant Shekhar S/o Rambali Singh, Resident of Road No.-1, Near Patna
Connent, Adarsh Vihar Colony, Ramkrishna Nagar, Sampatchak, Patna,
Bihar, Pin Code-800027.
2. Rakesh Kumar Thakur S/o Devchandera Thakur, Resident of Vill-
Shrikhand, P.O.- Chainpur P.S. Sugauli, Dist.-East Champaran (Motihari),
Bihar, Mobile No.- 7488944626.
3. Omkar Nath S/o Thakurdayal Singh, Resident of Vill- Gorasara, P.O and
P.S.- Nuaon, Dist.-Kaimur, Bihar, Pin Code- 802132 Mobile No.-
7319786379.
4. Madan Mohan Prasad S/o Ram Kumar, Resident of Vill- Chak Hussain, P.O
and P.S.- Khusrupur, Dist.-Patna, Bihar, Pin Code- 803202.
5. Inderjeet Yadav S/o Dadan Yadav, Resident of Vill- Samhar, P.O- Nenua,
P.S. Dumraom, Dist.- Buxar, Bihar, Pin Code-802119.
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
4/76
6. Rahul Kumar S/o Santosh Kumar Resident of Vill.- Daniyalpur, P.O and
P.S.- Teghara, Dist.- Begusarai, Bihar, Pin Code-851133
7. Saif Ali Khan S/o Md. Asraf Khan, Resident of Road No.-7, P.O.- New
Karim Ganj, P.S.- Civil Lines, Dist.- Gaya, Bihar, Pin Code-823001.
8. Amit Kumar S/o Satyajeet Gandhi, Resident of Ward No.-11, Baghi Suhird
Nagar, Begusarai, Bihar, Pin Code-851218.
9. Rajnish Kumar S/o Birendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Vill-Kavara, P.O.-
Karava, P.S.-Ghoswari, Dist.-Patna, Bihar.
10. Shubham Ranjan S/o Birendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Postal Park, Sanjay
Nagar, Patna, Bihar, Pin Code-800001.
11. Krishna Pandey S/o Ashok Pandey, Resident of N.C. Ghosh Lane,
Gardanibagh, Patna, Bihar, Pin Code-800001.
12. Prince Gupta S/o Radhe Shyam Gupta, Resident of Bhagwanpur, Chainpur,
Chainpur, Kaimur (Bhabhua), Bihar, Pin Code- 821103.
13. Akansha Pandey, Female, aged about 22 years, S/o Ashok Kumar Pandey,
Resident of N.C. Ghosh Lane, Gardanibagh, Patna, Bihar, Pin Code-800001.
14. Avinash Kumar Singh S/o Ramashankar Singh, Resident of Khedarpura,
Daudnagar, Baishali, Bihar, Pin Code-844113.
15. Shyam Kumar Kamat @ Shyam S/o Tapeshwar Kamat, Resident of
Damodar Patti @ Simari, P.O.-Vadupatti, Dist.- Sitamarhi, Bihar, Pin Code-
843319.
16. Nilesh Kumar S/o Vidhyanand Prasad, Resident of East Bhikhachak,
Anisabad, Gardanibagh, Patna, Bihar, Pin Code- 800001.
17. Prashant S/o Sabindra Prasad, Resident of Vill.-Dhanawana Bigha, P.O.-
Gopalbad, P.S.- Savnera, Dist.- Nalanda, Bihar.
18. Pawan Kumar S/o Late Raj Kishor Prasad Singh, Resident of Lalji Tola,
Gali No.-3 Opposite Prasad Bhawan, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, P.O.-Patna
G.P.O., Dist.-Patna, Bihar, Pin Code-800001.
19. Chetan Kumar S/o Samir Kumar Resident of B/3 Lala B.K. Ambastha, Dy.
Collector, B.A.S., Raj Kumar Path, Sadan Alkapur, Gardanibag, Anisabad,
Patna, Bihar, Pin code-800002.
20. Pratyush Kumar Prabhakar S/o Sidharth Shankar Roy, Resident of Indira
Nagar, Road No.-06, Postal Park, Patna, Bihar, Pin Code-800001.
21. Neeraj Kr. Jha S/o Tulakant Jha, Resident of Barhora, Bababarahi,
Madhubani, Bihar, Pin Code-847401.
22. Vikram Jyoti, Female, aged about 30 years, S/o Arvind Kumar Singh,
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
5/76
Resident of Bahadurpur Bagicha, Bazaar Samiti, Rajendra Nagar, Patna,
Bihar, Pin code-800016.
23. Rajan Kr. Jha S/o Anil Jha, Resident of Vill.- Pando tola, P.S.-Bonsi, Dist-
Banka, Bihar, Pin code-813104.
24. Anupriya Kumari, Female, aged about 23 years, S/o Bipin Kr. Jha, Resident
of Koraiya, Sugauli, East Champaran, Bihar, Pin Code-845456.
25. Azra Fatma Rizivi S/o A.M. Rizvi, Resident of River View Colony,
Loharwaghat, Alamgang, Patna, Bihar, Pin Code- 800007.
26. Sunny Raj S/o Ashok Kumar, Resident of Shahpur, Dist.- Bhojpur, Bihar,
Pin Code-802165.
27. Shiv Shankar S/o Arun Kr. Singh, Resident of Adarsh Nagar, Road No.-02,
Anisabad, Beaur thana, Dist.- Patna, Bihar, Pin Code-800002.
28. Suryakant S/o Kaushlendra Kumar, Resident of Bypass, Adarsh Vihar
Colony, R.K. Nagar, Patna, Bihar, Pin Code- 800027.
29. Vishal Kumar S/o Asha Narayan Prasad, Resident of Khairwa, Chapra
Bhikhari, East Champaran, Bihar, Pin Code-845412.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, 15 Jawahar
Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
3. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Bailey Road, Patna.
4. Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Bailey Road, Patna.
5. Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Jawahar Lal
Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1723 of 2025
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
6/76
======================================================
1. Neha Parween D/o- Raji Uddin, Resident of Topkahna Bazar, P.S. and
District- Munger.
2. Prashant Kumar, Son of Atul Kumar Singh, Resident of village- Phulaut
Paschami, ward no.- 05, P.S.- Chausa, District- Madhepura.
3. Ujjwal Choudhary, Son of Shankar Choudhary, resident of ward no.- 23,
Raghubansh Road, Andi Gola, Muzaffarpur, Naya Tola, Near Ramesh Rahi
Agrwal Girls High School, P.S. and District- Muzaffarpur.
4. Ranjan Kumar, Son of Umashankar Prasad, Resident of Harpur, ward no.-
05, Adapur, P.S- Harpur, District- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar Patna.
3. The Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, 15 Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Jawaharlal Nehru
Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
5. The Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2842 of 2025
======================================================
Prince Kumar S/o- Late Raj Kumar Prasad, R/o- Vill Murgiyachak, PO and
PS- Wena, Block-Rahui, District-Nalanda, Pin-803110.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
7/76
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar.
3. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary, 15 Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna
4. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,
Bailey Road, Patna.
5. The Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission, Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 752 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhijit Anand, Advocate
Ms.Sweta Kumari, Advocate
For the BPSC : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Sr. CGC
Mrs. Parul Prasad, CGC
Mr. Aditya Anand, Advocate
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate
For the CBI : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Arya Achint, Advocate
Mrs. Karishma Aware, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K.Shahi, A.G.
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Amritesh Kumar, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 369 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Pranav Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Shrishti Singh, Advocate
Mr. Devashish Giri, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
8/76
Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, Advocate
Mr. Kushal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K.Shahi, A.G.
Mr. S.C.-9
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Amritesh Kumar, Advocate
For the BPSC : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Ayush, Advocate
Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 978 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Chandan Kumar, Advocate
Md. Fazle Karim, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K.Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
For the CBI : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Arya Achint, Advocate
Mrs. Karishma Aware, Advocate
For the BPSC : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Ayush, Advocate
Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the EOU : Mr. V.N.P.Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1437 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Raushan, Advocate
Mr. Sahil Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Arpit Anand, Advocate
Mr. Pushkar Bharadwaj, Advocate
Ms. Shreyashi Raj, Advocate
Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Saket Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Pramod Kumar Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Subham, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K.Shahi, Advocate General
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
9/76
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
For the BPSC : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Ayush, Advocate
Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Intervener : Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Saket Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Pramod Kumar Yadav, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1723 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K.Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
For the BPSC : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Ayush, Advocate
Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2842 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Roona, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Pratiyush Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.K.Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
For the BPSC : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Ayush, Advocate
Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 28-03-2025
The common prayer in all the writ petitions,
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
10/76
including the PIL, is cancellation of integrated 70 th
Combined (Preliminary) Competitive Examination,
conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (for
short 'the Commission'), held on 13.12.2024 and
04.01.2025
and for holding a re-examination on the
grounds of (i) systemic failure of the Commission in
conducting a free and fair examination; (ii) logistical and
administrative mismanagement at examination centres; (iii)
impermissibility of holding two Preliminary Examinations;
(iv) prevaricating stand of the Commission with respect to
normalization; (v) wrong key-answers; (vi) unfair answer
evaluation process; (vii) malpractices at the examination
centres; (viii) strong chances of paper leak; and (ix)
completely opaque methodology for coming out with a
combined merit-list, without taking into account the equal
standard of rigour for the students, thus offending Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
2. It has been argued by all the petitioners that the
above-noted grounds have led to the process of
examination and the result being shrouded/mired in
controversy. It is the assertion of the petitioners that for
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
maintaining the purity of the examination process as also
for restoring faith in the system, the only way now is to
hold a re-examination in a fair manner. Not doing so, it has
been urged, would erode the Constitutional values, which
undergird Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,
mandating that selection process conducted by public
authorities must be fair, transparent and accountable. Any
irregularity in the process gives rise to doubts whether the
process has resulted in denial of equal access to all persons
and in that case, the entire process gets tainted, requiring
cancellation of examination/result and holding of fresh
examination.
3. The countervailing arguments on behalf of the
Commission and the State are that the process was fair and
all care was taken to conduct the examination in a proper
manner with very limited complaints regarding
mismanagement at Bapu Pariksha Parisar (for short 'BPP'),
the centre with maximum examinees, and few of the key-
answers being wrong. But those issues were resolved by
referring the wrong key-answers to the Committee of
Experts who have given their reasons for selecting the
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
correct answer; and the Commission in its wisdom and
experience chose to conduct a re-examination for the
candidates of BPP centre only and not for other 912 centres
in the entire State of Bihar. The result of successful
candidates in the Preliminary Examination has been
published in which approximately 21000 students have
passed the examination. Their careers could not be lightly
dealt with. It was reiterated that there is a need to preserve
public confidence in the sanctity of the selection process,
but at the same time, there is a requirement of observing
fairness towards candidates who invest time and resources
in attempting to clear through a selection process and both
these considerations have a Constitutional foundation,
going beyond service and administrative law principles.
4. Animadverting to the unfairness in the holding
of examination, the petitioner in PIL, whose locus has
seriously been challenged, has pointed out that (a) the
Commission had issued notification on 23.09.2024, inviting
on-line applications but without giving any advertisement
number; (b) According to the press note of the Commission
on 08.12.2024, a total of 4.80 lakhs online applications
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
were made, out of which approximately 1.3 lakhs online
applications with payment were received in the last four
days, when the server of the online portal of the
Commission was absolutely slow, resulting in around
80,000 to 90,000 applicants not having been able to
complete the process of filling up of the forms.
Nonetheless, the online portal was re-opened and the final
date of filling up the forms was extended on two occasions.
Further, commenting on the process of the examination, the
petitioner in the PIL alleged that (c) the admit-cards of the
applicants were released on 06.12.2024, but only two days
before the scheduled date of holding the examination, the
examination centres of 5,000 applicants were changed from
Gaya to Nawada vide notification dated 10.12.2024; (d)
Prior to the scheduled date of examination on 13.12.2024,
the Commission, curiously, had invited the private
coaching centres of Patna for a meeting on 30.10.2024. The
allegation is that perhaps those coaching centres were asked
for question-banks, which charge gets substantiated
because many questions in the booklets tallied with the
model questions prepared by the coaching centres and
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
circulated amongst its students; (e) In fact, statistically
speaking, 24 questions were taken out of Khan Global
Studies and 22 questions were from Utkarsh Classes; (f)
The level of the standard of questions also were below par;
(g) According to newspaper reports dated 14.12.2024, this
Court was apprised, special treatment was given by the
District Administration, Khagaria to several of the
examinees, all of whom had stayed in Circuit House,
Khagaria; (h) Several complaints from various centres in
different districts were sent by the examinees but those
were callously ignored; (i) The Commission did not do
anything positive towards allaying the fears of the students
that the process of normalization would be applied to the
examination results and because of that, several of the
students started agitating against normalization even before
the scheduled date of examination. It was only later in the
day on 06.12.2024 that a press note was issued by the
Commission that the results would not be subjected to
normalization. An objection has also been raised on the
issue of the (j) Chairman of the Commission having been
made an accused earlier in multi-crore scholarship scam;
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
(k) The District Administration resorted to unnecessary
lathi-charge and use of water-cannons on peaceful agitation
of the applicants on 25.12.2024 and 29.12.2024. Many
applicants/aspirants were made accused in criminal cases
who were clamouring for re-examination.
5. By way of Interlocutory Application No. 2 of
2025, the petitioner in the PIL sought permission to bring
on record additional documents and video-clips in
pendrives. The necessary directions issued by the
Commission were also brought on record to suggest that (l)
none of the important advisories and directions of the
Commission were followed while conducting the
examination: like opening of question papers in front of the
students, suggested pattern of sitting arrangements;
maximum number of students to be allowed to sit in one
hall; the tamper-proof bags being torn etc. Apart from this,
what has been brought on record are (m) various
messages/posts on 'X' (earlier Twitter) and Facebook
accounts, suggesting malpractices at various centres; (n)
Some of the students charged that there was a leak of
question papers by around 1:00 P.M in the day on
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
13.12.2024, which was circulated through mobile
telephones and at one of the centres, answers to the
questions were being announced from outside on
loudspeakers.
6. For all these allegations, the petitioner has
relied on Facebook posts of applicants, most of whom had
disclosed their identities and also their roll-numbers to
indicate that they were applicants and not persons not
interested in the examination process.
7. In CWJC No. 369 of 2025, by 14 petitioners, it
was alleged that in the examination held on 13.12.2024,
there was a ruckus at BPP Centre at Patna. Message was
spread that question paper had leaked. Several of the
candidates, on learning about the paper leak, staged a walk-
out and also disrupted the entire examination. Question
papers were taken out of the centre and circulated on social
media with wide reach. Those question papers were also
sent by the applicants to the official site of the Economic
Offence Unit of the State of Bihar at 1:00 P.M., demanding
appropriate legal action. There were other irregularities at
BPP Centre, which was not limited to one centre, but such
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
disturbances impacted several examination centres across
the length and breadth of the State. Another objection
raised by the candidates was that they had been given
wrong question series and for addressing the aforenoted
issues, the Examination Centre Superintendents consumed
around 20-45 minutes, eating into the writing time of the
applicants. One of the students, namely, Sonu Kumar,
having Roll No. 557149, made a specific complaint in this
regard to the Commission. Commensurate extra time was
not given by the Centre Superintendents. In many of the
Centres, as noted above, question papers were not unsealed
in presence of the candidates and there were no holograms
on the admit-cards. Another serious complaint was that
even jammers were not functional during the entire
examination duration, giving a strong suspicion towards
leak of question paper and resultant impurity of the
examination. The very fact of changing the examination
centre of several thousand students only a few days before
the schedule date of examination reflected complete lack of
preparedness of the Commission to hold examination at
such a scale. In the re-examination held on 04.01.2025,
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
though approximately 8000 candidates had downloaded the
admit-cards, but only 5943 candidates had taken the
examination. An inquiry also was started by Economic
Offence Unit, about which the candidates came to learn
from the newspaper reports. There was serious objection to
the Commission considering to take re-examination only
with respect to one centre, even though malpractices were
alleged at different centres in different districts. The
Secretary of the Commission is alleged to have made a
statement at large that scaling would be applied in
formulating the results, about which there was no reference
either in the advertisement or in the SOP published by the
Commission.
8. These grounds, it was urged, clearly reflected
malpractice and academic fraud /cheating, thereby posing a
threat to public trust in the reliability and credibility of the
system as a whole. It destroyed the purity of the selection
process. The only way, it was suggested, to rectify this
distrust and set the course right, is to hold a re-examination
for all the applicants.
9. In the writ petition preferred by Prashant
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
Shekhar and 28 others (CWJC No. 1437 of 2025), it has
been alleged that there were altogether 10 incorrect answers
given in the final answer-key published by the Commission
for the examination conducted on 13.12.2024. They have
said so on the basis of the source materials for the correct
answer which have been brought on record. Similarly, 4
wrong answers were provided in the final answer-key for
the examination held on 04.01.2025. With respect to the
allegation that there was a paper leak, copies of Twitter
posts and chats on WhatsApp have been brought on record.
What was really canvassed by the learned Advocate for the
petitioners in the aforenoted writ-petitions that the
candidates who participated in the re-examination on
04.01.2025 had an edge over those candidates who had
participated on 13.12.2024 for the reason that two
questions were repeated on 04.01.2025 and 20 questions
were almost on the same pattern. It was, thus, sought to be
inferred that it violated the equality clause of the
Constitution.
10. The other writ petitions viz. CWJC No. 1723
of 2025, 2842 of 2025 and 978 of 2025 are also with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
same allegations.
11. The Commission replied to all such petitions,
firstly by questioning and raising serious doubts about the
locus of the petitioner/ Trust, namely, Anand Legal Aid
Forum Trust (CWJC No. 752 of 2025). The Trust has not
disclosed its Registration Number nor has spoken about the
name of the authority with which the Trust is registered. No
information, the Commission contended, was given with
respect to the details of the Trustees; the area and scope of
operation of the Trust; the activities undertaken in the
recent past; Trust Deed; its charitable objectives; sources of
finance; assets; governing bye-laws etc. On that score, it
was urged that the Public Interest Litigation was not
maintainable. The Trust/petitioner, it was argued, has failed
to comply with the provisions contained in Chapter XXI-
CC of the Patna High Court Rules, which specifically deals
with Public Interest Litigation: Rule-6 whereof requires a
petitioner to give full and complete details of himself to
reveal his interest, credentials, qualification relevant for the
PIL along with a declaration that he has no personal
interest, direct or indirect, in the subject PIL. That apart, no
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
supporting data for the allegations in the petition has been
provided. The information given are all half truths and
fantasies. Wild and deceptive allegations have been made
in the petition against the Commission.
12. In support of the aforenoted contention of the
Commission that this petition ought not to be entertained,
reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and
Others; (2005) 5 SCC 136, in which it has been held that
the Court has to be satisfied before entertaining a PIL about
the credentials of the applicant; prima facie correctness of
the nature of information given by him; which information
ought not to be vague or indefinite. A Court has always to
strike a balance between two conflicting interests, viz. that
nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless
allegations besmirching the character of others and
avoidance of public mischief.
13. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B.;
(2004) 3 SCC 349, the Supreme Court, it has been argued,
has likened the Public Interest Litigation to a weapon
which has to be used with great care and circumspection. It
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
has only to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury
of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The
attractive brand-name of Public Interest Litigation ought
not to be allowed to be used for suspicious and
mischievous motives; rather it should be aimed at redressal
of genuine public wrong or public injury but never
publicity oriented assertions or facts based on personal
vendetta.
14. The objection by the Commission was met by
the petitioner by providing details regarding the
constitution of the Trust.
15. Considering the fact that generally, in a Public
Interest Litigation, the aspect of locus takes a back seat, and
that the issues here pertain to students who have appeared
in an examination and seek re-examination on account of
malpractices, we have considered it appropriate to hear the
petitioner.
16. It is to be noted that the petitioner/Anand
Legal Aid Forum Trust had earlier approached the Supreme
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which
was disposed off by asking the petitioner to approach the
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
jurisdictional High Court. The rest of the writ petitions
were being heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
Considering that all the issues raised in these petitions are
similar, all the petitions were clubbed together and hearing
was accorded in each of the petitions.
17. The Commission while responding to rest of
the petitions, brought to the notice of this Court the fact
that the General Administration Department of the
Government of Bihar had sent requisition to the
Commission for publication of advertisement for
appointment on 1957 different posts in different
departments of the Government of Bihar. Pursuant to such
requisition, an advertisement was published on 23.09.2024,
inviting applications from suitable candidates for the
Preliminary Competitive Examination. The last date for
filling up the forms online was extended to 04.11.2024. On
09.12.2024, a notice was published by the Commission
giving important instructions to the aspirants and letting
them know that no candidate shall be permitted entry in the
examination hall after 11:00 A.M. on 13.12.2024 for the
examination which would commence from 12 O' Clock and
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
would continue till 2:00 P.M.
18. The Centre Superintendents of all the 912
examination centres reported that the examination on
13.12.2024 was conducted peacefully. However, there was
disturbance at one of the centres, namely, BPP centre at
Patna. A detailed report was thus sought for and received
by the Commission on 15.12.2024 from the District
Magistrate, Patna. The report indicated that few undesirable
elements/applicants created ruckus in the BPP Centre and
after snatching question papers, took it outside the
examination hall. Those candidates only spread rumours
that the examination was being cancelled. They disturbed
the other candidates who were writing their papers
peacefully. The report further indicates that some of them
threatened the Centre Superintendent to announce that the
exam had been cancelled. It was in this connection that
some of the question booklets were taken out of the
examination centre, but it was around 1:00 P.M.
19. Repelling the contention of the petitioners, the
Commission has claimed that all printed question booklets
kept in TES Bags were opened in front of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
candidates/their representatives. However, the report
admitted of delay of about 10-15 minutes in distribution of
question papers because of the enormous size of the BPP
centre with five floors. Despite the candidates having been
told that they would get 10-15 minutes extra time as per the
general practice, with a determined mind-set, few of the
candidates, who perhaps were not interested in writing the
exam, created the disturbance. Criminal case was also
instituted against some of the students. It appeared that
there was a well-thought conspiracy to create disturbance
and chaos at BPP centre with a view to have the
examination cancelled.
20. The posts on social media 'X' clearly reflects
that the circulation was at around 1:00 P.M. when the
examination was smoothly going on at all other
examination centres. The post on 'X' was of the same
question paper which was looted in the BPP Centre. In this
context, it has been stated that the candidates were strictly
frisked and searched and were not allowed to enter the
examination-hall with any electronic gadget, including
smart watches, mobile phones, bluetooth devices etc. More
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
than 13000 electronic jammers were installed to restrict the
internet connectivity. Even if it is assumed that one of the
question booklets was circulated on social media at around
1:00 P.M., according to the Commission, it was not
communicated to any one of the examinees, who were
sitting in the sanitized examination halls without any
electronic signals because of the jammers. The Commission
was absolutely sure that there was no possibility of any
examinee having benefited from the paper-leak at 1:00 P.M.
Nevertheless, the Commission called its meeting on
16.12.2024 and carefully examined all CCTV footage,
social media clips, reports from different Centre
Superintendents and in particular of District Magistrate,
Patna as also the complaints by the candidates. It was after
due deliberation that the Commission came to the
conclusion that because of the trouble created at BPP
Centre, where the students were prevented from writing the
examination and some of the answer booklets were
destroyed, it was necessary to conduct re-examination for
the candidates of that examination centre only. The
Commission also, it has been argued, took into account
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
that holding re-examination for all the candidates would be
unfair to approximately five lakhs of them. The
Commission adverted to the earlier precedents, especially
its decision regarding 66th BPSC Examination, where under
similar circumstances re-examination was preferred in one
of the centres.
21. In the re-examination on 04.01.2025, 5943
candidates had appeared.
22. After the successful holding of re-examination
on 4th of January, 2025, the Commission got the provisional
answer-keys of the question papers for both the
examinations (13.12.2024 and 04.01.2025) prepared by a
High Level Committee of Subject Experts. An
advertisement was issued on 8th of January, 2025 inviting
objections, if any, regarding provisional answer-keys from
the candidates between 10.01.2025 to 16.01.2025. A press
note was issued that final answer keys will be published
after the Subject Experts had considered all the objections
of the candidates.
23. The Commission had received about 4900
objections/suggestions from candidates with regard to
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
provisional model answers of some of the questions of
General Studies paper. After careful deliberation, the
independent Subject Expert Committee came to a
conclusion that out of 150 questions of General Studies
paper, 4 questions, viz. Questions No. 58, 101, 114 and 117
of E Series, for which examination was held on 13.12.2024
and 4 questions, viz. Question Nos. 5,13, 79 and 91 of 1
series, for which examination was held on 04.01.2025 were
required to be deleted and detailed reasons were recorded
for each of such answers in the report. The Subject Expert
Committee also finalized the answer-keys for all the
questions for which the examinations were held on
13.12.2024 and 04.01.2025. In fact, it has been asserted
that before finally evaluating the OMR Sheets, by way of
an abundant precaution and transparency, the Commission
published the OMR Sheets of the candidates, with limited
access to the candidates only, and invited objections/claims
by 21st of January, 2025. It was only thereafter, i.e., after
the evaluation of claims and objections, the OMR Sheets
were evaluated on the basis of final answer-keys prepared
by the Subject Experts. The results prepared, thereafter was
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
published on 23.01.2025, in which a total number of 21581
candidates were declared successful.
24. So far as adherence to the SOP is concerned,
the Commission had hired M/s Electronics Corporation of
India, a PSU, to install jammers at strategic places of the
examination centres. Approximately 13000 jammers were
installed at 912 centres.
25. According to the Commission, all candidates,
invigilators, other staff deputed to the examination duties,
were not permitted to bring any communication device
inside the examination centre. CCTV Cameras were
installed for capturing the photo of biometric identification
of candidates.
26. With respect to the allegation of change of
examination centres of 5000 candidates, the Commission
has trashed the aforenoted argument. On 10.12.2024, a
notice was published by the Commission, clarifying and
informing the candidates that they are supposed to appear
at Nawada centre as on the admit-cards of certain
candidates, there was a typographical error. The Centre
Code was 'NAW', which stands for Nawada. Therefore, an
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
immediate precautionary measure was taken for preventing
any candidate from being misled. Those candidates were
informed on their e-mail address and on SMS. No such
candidate has up till now complained against the last-
minute change of centre or misleading information. On
12.12.2024, another notice was issued, clarifying the
address of examination centres for easy access to the
candidates. Thus, denying any allegation of mass scale
cheating or a large scale lapse in adhering to the SOP or
widespread paper leak, the question papers not reaching the
candidates on time, the Commission contends that re-
examination is only the cry of such students who have not
been successful or who are not interested in the
examination process at all. The allegations made in the writ
petitions lack details or substantial proof and are thus,
unverifiable.
27. After having gone through the records and
having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, we
have found that though there has been a consistent and loud
demand of re-examination for all the candidates on the
grounds of paper leak and non-observance of the SOP by
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
the Commission, but except for the proof of disturbance at
BPP Centre at Patna, which was one of the biggest centres,
accommodating maximum number of candidates, there is
no serious complaint from any other centre.
28. The learned Advocates appearing for the
petitioners have submitted that the self-certification of the
Centre Superintendents which suits the Commission ought
not to be taken as a last word. Even if one candidate
remains dissatisfied with the fairness of the examination,
and the basis for saying so is substantially proved, the
purity of the process stands challenged and compromised.
29. The petitioners mostly have relied upon
observations/complaints of candidates, in some cases with
their identities and roll numbers, post examination. These
are only WhatsApp messages and some stray complaints,
which on verification, were not found to have been
substantiated.
30. In Sachin Kumar and Others v. Delhi
Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and
Others.; (2021) 4 SCC 631, the position in law with respect
to a judicial decision holding an examination to have been
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
vitiated has been laid down.
31. The Supreme Court, after evaluating a number
of judgments postulated that essentially the answer to the
issue turns upon whether the irregularity in the process have
taken place at a systemic level so as to vitiate the sanctity of
the process. In some cases, the authority conducting the
examination might itself come to the conclusion that as a
result of the subversion of the process for any supervening
event or circumstances rendering the process to lose its
legitimacy, there would be no option but to cancel the entire
examination in its entirety. In this situation, there is no fact
finding exercise into individual acts involving use of
malpractices or unfair means. Such a situation would arise
only when there is a systemic failure of the process where it
would be difficult to segregate the tainted from the
untainted participants in the process. The other situation
would be where some of the participants in the process
allege irregularities. In that case, it may well be possible to
segregate those persons or candidates at a particular centre
to be subjected to re-examination and excluding the others
from the process. This serves the purpose of protecting the
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
interest of the candidates who have done their part and
should not be slapped with any price for the wrong doings
of the others. Segregating the wrong doers and allowing the
selection process to be continued and taken to its logical
conclusion is an accepted principle of service jurisprudence,
which stands on the bedrock principles enshrined under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Nonetheless,
if there is evidence of systemic irregularities, the entire
process becomes vitiated.
32. What the Supreme Court has emphasized is
that whenever it is possible to segregate persons who have
indulged in malpractices and the recruiting or examination
taking body does not do so so, then it would be unfair to the
diligent applicants who ought not to be subjected to the
consequences of cancellation of the entire process. This, in
fact, would be contrary to Article 14 because in that event
unequals would be found to have been treated equally. A
recruiting body, no doubt is subject to judicial control but
only on settled principles that the recruiting authority must
have a measure of discretion to take decisions in accordance
with law which are best suited to preserve the sanctity of
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
the process.
33. In Bihar School Examination Board v.
Subhas Chandra Sinha and Others; (1970) 1 SCC 648, a
three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court while dealing
with a case involving a challenge to the decision to cancel
the annual secondary school examination in relation to a
particular centre in a district of Bihar, it was found that the
Unfair Means Committee of the Examination Board had
asked the moderators to look into all the answer books
where the percentage was 80% or more. The Committee
had reported unfair means on a mass-scale. The Chairman
of the Board had then cancelled the examination in all
subjects at that particular centre, allowing the examinees to
re-appear at the supplementary examination later but
without payment of fresh fee, which decision of the
Chairman was approved by the Board. The High Court had
quashed the action of the Board but on the ground that the
examinees were not furnished with a show-cause and
materials on which the Chairperson passed the order.
34. The Supreme Court did not approve of the
aforenoted decision and held that there was no requirement
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
of giving opportunity to the candidates to represent their
cases, if the examination as a whole was being cancelled.
The examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means
on a mass scale. The essence of the examination is that
worth of every person is appraised without any assistance
from any outside source. If at a particular centre, the
success rate is 100%, whereas at other centres, the rate is
only an average of 50%, the presumption then is correct that
there is mass-scale cheating. If there is sufficient material
on which it could be demonstrated that the conclusion of the
Board was right and that the entire examination ought to be
cancelled, then such appreciation of the problem must be
respected and it would not do any good for the Court to say
to the Board to do otherwise.
35. In Anamica Mishra and Others v. U.P. Public
Service Commission, Allahabad and Others; (1990) Supp
SCC 692, the issue involved was that in recruitment to
various posts in the educational service of the State of Uttar
Pradesh, it was found that after the written examination, due
to improper feeding of data into the computer, some
candidates who had shown better performance in the written
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
examination were not called for the interview and persons
with lesser marks were called for the interview and were
finally selected. The entire process was cancelled by the
Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court found that
when there was no defect with regard to the written
examination and the sole objection was confined to the
exclusion of a group of successful candidates in the written
examination for the interview, there was no justification for
cancelling the written part of the recruitment examination.
The situation could have been rectified by asking for a fresh
interview of all eligible candidates on the basis of written
examination.
36. This was one of the representative cases where
the cancellation of the entire recruitment process was held
not to be justified since there was no systemic flaw in the
written test and the issue was only with regard to calling the
candidates for the interview.
37. In Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v.
Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Others; (1998) 9
SCC 236, the Board had cancelled the entire examination
following the report of the Naib Tehsildar, who had found
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
mass-copying by the students. The decision of the Board
was set aside by the High Court, holding that cancellation
was unsustainable. The Supreme Court did not agree with
the High Court as it did not see any justification in the High
Court having interfered with the decision taken by the
Board to treat the examination as cancelled. The innocent
students in that case could not be helped because the
examination taking body could not have undertaken an
extremely difficult task of identifying innocent students
from those indulging in malpractices.
38. In Union of India and Others v. Rajesh P.U.,
Puthuvalnikathu and Another (2003) 7 SCC 285, where
the entire examination was cancelled on the allegation of
favouritism being shown by some of the officers conducting
the physical efficiency test as also irregularities in the
written examination, the Supreme Court affirmed the view
of the High Court that there was no justification to cancel
the entire selection when the impact of irregularities which
had crept into the evaluation of merits could be identified
specifically with respect to particular number of candidates.
39. In Inderpreet Singh Kahlon and Others. v.
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
State of Punjab and Others; (2006) 11 SCC 356, the same
principle was reiterated that there must be an effort to
segregate tainted from the untainted candidates.
40. In Sachin Kumar (supra) the Supreme Court
after taking into account the dictum in the aforenoted cases
as also in Joginder Pal and Others v. State of Punjab and
Others; (2014) 6 SCC 644; Chairman, All India Railway
Recruitment Board and Another v. K. Shyam Kumar and
Others; (2010) 6 SCC 614; State of Tamil Nadu and
Another v. A. Kalaimani and Others; (2021) 16 SCC 217
and Gohil Vishvaraj Hanubhai and Others v. State of
Gujarat and Others; (2017) 13 SCC 621 has observed that:
"66. Recruitment to public services
must command public confidence. Persons
who are recruited are intended to fulfill
public functions associated with the
functioning of the Government. Where the
entire process is found to be flawed, its
cancellation may undoubtedly cause
hardship to a few who may not specifically
be found to be involved in wrongdoing. But
that is not sufficient to nullify the ultimate
decision to cancel an examination where the
nature of the wrongdoing cuts through the
entire process so as to seriously impinge
upon the legitimacy of the examinations
which have been held for recruitment. Both
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
the High Court and the Tribunal have, in our
view, erred in laying exclusive focus on the
report of the second Committee which was
confined to the issue of impersonation. The
report of the second Committee is only one
facet of the matter. The Deputy Chief
Minister was justified in going beyond it and
ultimately recommending that the entire
process should be cancelled on the basis of
the findings which were arrived at in the
report of the first Committee. Those findings
do not stand obliterated nor has the Tribunal
found any fault with those findings. In this
view of the matter, both the judgments of the
Tribunal and the High Court are
unsustainable."
41. In Tanvi Sarwal v. Central Board of
Secondary Education and Others; (2015) 6 SCC 573,
where the investigations had revealed that the examination
had been exposed to a deep-rooted conspiracy of a gang of
persons, who with the aid of electronic devices had been
able to access the beneficiary candidates with the answer
keys during the test so as to enable them to solve the
question paper and the benefit of answer key was availed by
several candidates, the Supreme Court permitted the
anullment of All India Pre-Medical and Pre-Dental Test,
2015, notwithstanding the fact that it would have definitely
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
disturbed the time schedule fixed by the Supreme Court in
Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another (5) v. Union of India
and Others; (2005) 2 SCC 65 and Priya Gupta v. State of
Chhattisgarh and Others; (2012) 7 SCC 433.
42. What needs to be emphasized here is that only
in the extraordinary fact situations where the examination in
question is vitiated to the core by use of deceitful means
benefitting the candidates in general, that the entire
examination can be cancelled.
43. In Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India and
Others.; (2024) 9 SCC 743, one of the latest
pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the position of law
was clearly adumberated. A three Judges Bench of the
Supreme Court in this case has opined that it is a settled law
that the cancellation of an examination, either for the
purposes of gaining admission to any professional or other
courses or for the purposes of recruitment to Government
posts, is justified only in cases where the sanctity of the
examination is found to be compromised at a systemic
level. A Court can direct cancellation of an examination or
approve such cancellation by the competent authority only
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
if it is not possible to separate the tainted candidates from
untainted ones.
44. Again, while taking reference of Anamica
Mishra, Subhas Chandra Sinha, Madhyamik Shiksha
Mandal, M.P. and Sachin Kumar (supra), the Supreme
Court held that the purpose of testing whether the integrity
of the exam has been compromised at a systemic level is to
ensure that the cancellation of the examination which has
already taken place and the holding of a fresh examination
is a proportionate response. In that context, it was said that
it is for this reason that the Courts must assess the extent of
the use of unfair means, and separately, it must consider
whether it is possible to separate tainted and untainted
candidates. The direction in the aforenoted decision is that a
holistic view is required to be taken by the Courts.
45. How to arrive at such a conclusion viz.
whether the examination has suffered from widespread
irregularities?
46. The Courts have to ensure that the allegations
of malpractice are substantiated and that the materials on
record point to that conclusion. There must be at least some
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
evidence to allow the Court to reach that conclusion.
However, it was also clarified that this standard of test need
not be unduly strict i.e. to say that it is not necessary that
the materials pointed out regarding irregularities ought to
indicate that the only conclusion which any prudent person
would arrive at would be that malpractice has taken place at
a systemic level and not otherwise.
47. One of the major grounds, apart from
malpractice, cheating and paper leak for demanding re-
examination is that many of the questions were wrongly
answered in the model key answers. It would be profitable
to first refer to the law on the subject, as has developed over
five decades. The Courts have entertained such challenges
to the suggested answers in the model key answers on very
limited ground, giving due weight to the opinions of the
Subject Experts.
48. A Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in
Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and Others
v. Samir Gupta and Others; (1983) 4 SCC 309 had
considered a case where challenge was made to the key
answers supplied by the paper-setter in an objective type
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
test for admission in medical courses. The jurisdictional
High Court had accepted the challenge to different
questions, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision.
According to the Supreme Court, such findings by a Court
of law would greatly affect the student community. It was
thus held that no challenge should be allowed to be made to
the correctness of a key answers unless, on the face of it, it
is wrong. The key answers should be assumed to be correct
unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held
to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a
process of rationalization. (emphasis supplied)
49. Following the above judgment in Kanpur
University (supra), the Supreme Court in Manish Ujwal
and Others v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University
and Others; (2005) 13 SCC 744 found that in case of
incorrectness of key answers, it would be unfair to penalize
the students for giving a correct answer. The High Court in
that case had expressed doubt whether it could be said with
certainty that the answers to the questions given in the key
answers were erroneous and incorrect. The Supreme Court
did not approve of this, especially when the key answers
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
were found to be palpably and demonstrably erroneous.
50. In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil
Garg and Others; (2005) 13 SCC 749, the Supreme Court
had directed the University to re-evaluate the answers of 8
questions with reference to key answers provided by CBSE.
51. In Rajesh Kumar and Others v. State of
Bihar and Others; (2013) 4 SCC 690, the facts were that
Bihar Staff Selection Commission had invited applications
against posts of Junior Engineers (Civil). The selection
process comprised a written objective type examination.
The unsuccessful candidates had assailed the selection. The
High Court had referred the model key answers to the
Experts and based on the reports of the Experts, the High
Court had held that 41 model answers out of 100 were
wrong. It was thus concluded by the High Court that the
entire examination was liable to be cancelled and so also the
appointments made on the basis thereof. This judgment was
challenged before the Division Bench of the Patna High
Court, which appeal was partly allowed and the judgment of
the learned Single Judge was modified holding that the
entire examination need not have been cancelled. This
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
judgment of the Division Bench was again challenged
before the Supreme Court. In that circumstance, the
Supreme Court was of the view that given the nature of the
defect in the answer key, the most natural and logical way
of correcting the evaluation of the scripts was to correct the
key and get the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis
thereof. There was, in the circumstances, in the opinion of
the Supreme Court, no compelling reason for directing a
fresh examination to be held by the Commission, especially
when there was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud
or corrupt motives which could possibly vitiate the entire
examination. Re-evaluation was a better option.
52. In Rishal and Others v. Rajasthan Public
Service Commission and Others; (2018) 8 SCC 81, it was
observed that the key answers prepared by the paper-setters
or the examining body is presumed to have been prepared
after due deliberations. The publication of key answers is a
step to achieve transparency and give an opportunity to
candidates to assess the correctness of the answers. An
opportunity to file objections against the key answers
uploaded by the examining body is a step to achieve
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
fairness and perfection in the process. The objections to the
key answers are to be examined by the Experts and
thereafter corrective measures, if any, should be taken by
the examining body.
53. In Rishal (supra), the Supreme Court took
note of the fact that after considering the objections, the
final key answers were published by the Commission,
whereafter several writ petitions were filed challenging the
correctness of the key answers adopted by the Commission.
The jurisdictional High Court had repelled the challenge,
accepting the views of the Experts. The candidates had
approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
directed the Expert Committee to re-examine the questions.
The report of the Expert Committee also did not satisfy
some of the appellants. The Supreme Court ultimately
directed the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to revise
the result of all candidates including all the appellants on
the basis of the report of the Expert Committee and publish
the entire revised result.
54. In Ran Vijay Singh and Others. v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others; (2018) 2 SCC 357, the Supreme
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
Court after referring to several case laws, including the
cases referred to above [Himachal Pradesh Public Service
Commission. v. Mukesh Thakur and Another; (2010) 6 SCC 759,
Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth v. Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education; (1980) SCC
OnLine Bom 148, Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar
Public Service Commission, Patna and Others; (2004) 6 SCC
714, Secy. W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan
Das and Others; (2007) 8 SCC 242; Board of Secondary
Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda and Another; (2004) 13 SCC
383; President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and
Another v. D. Suvankar and Another; (2007) 1 SCC 603 and
Central Board of Secondary Education through Secretary, All
India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination and Others
v. Khushboo Shrivastava and Others ; (2014) 14 SCC 523] listed
the following conclusions:-
(a) 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;
(b) If a statute, rule or regulation governing an
examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an
answer-sheet, 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
rationalization and only in rare or exceptional cases where a
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
material error is committed;
(c) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or
scrutinize the answer-sheets of a candidate as it has no
expertise in the matter and the academic matters are best
left to the academics;
(d) The Court should presume the correctness of
the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and
(e) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to
the Examination Authority rather than to the candidates.
55. In Ran Vijay Singh (supra), the Supreme
Court, as a parting note, observed 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 suffer. 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
held since mathematical precision is not always possible.
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
The safest course in such a situation is to exclude the
suspect or offending question.
56. The Supreme Court also lamented that despite
several decisions of the Apex Court, there have been
interferences by the Courts in the result of the examination.
This places the Examination Authorities in an unenviable
position where they are under scrutiny and not the
candidates. Additionally, a massive and some times
prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of
uncertainty. Like students who undertake lot of efforts in
the preparation for an examination, the Examination
Authorities also put in equally great efforts to successfully
conduct the examination. There could be some lapse
because of the enormity of the task involved, but the proper
course for the Courts is to insist for the internal checks and
balances and the SOP being adhered to before making any
interference. Interference more often than not largely
impacts the academic life and the career of students which
might lead to the sufferance of public interest. The advisory
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, is that the Courts
must be very circumspect in interfering and deciding on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
correctness of the key answers.
57. Does it, therefore, mean that under no
circumstance can the correctness of the key answer could be
challenged?
58. The answer is definitely in the negative.
59. The wide powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is always available to a person, but
subject to the caveat that there could be no questioning of
key answers with respect to its correctness on the basis of
deductions and inferential logic. Interference can only be
made if the answer is palpably wrong, admitting of no other
opinion except the incorrectness of it.
60. With the aforenoted position of law, we have
examined the objections of the petitioners with respect to
key answers against several questions which were referred
to the Subject Experts by the Commission and the correct
answers were propounded by giving reasons. It would be
profitable to extract the decision of the Subject Experts with
regard to the answers which have been challenged by the
candidates. The opinion of the Subject Experts is not mere
opinion but is based on reasoning. In such circumstances,
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
therefore, it will have to be assumed that the key answers
are correct ones. In fact, wherever it was found that the key
answer was incorrect, the Experts suggested deletion.
61. For ready reference, we extract the decision of
the Subject Experts with regard to the answers which have
been challenged by the candidates:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
62. The general chorus of the Advocates appearing
for the petitioners, including the PIL, is for an enquiry by an
agency like CBI or any other impartial agency to discover
whether the functionaries of the Commission were hand in
gloves with the education mafia, coaching centre handlers
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
and gangs who have always been stepping in the arena of
examination and finding out ways and means for leaking
the question papers.
63. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is
that there appears to be an apparent camaraderie between
the Commission and few of the coaching centre
managements, or else there was no reason for holding a
meeting, prior to the examination, of the management of the
coaching centres.
64. The question whether High Court can direct
CBI to start or to take over an investigation on the mere
asking of the petitioners requires to be discussed.
65. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in
State of West Bengal and Others v. Committee for
Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others;
(2010) 3 SCC 571 had examined the question as to the
rights of CBI to investigate a criminal offence in a State
without its consent. The Supreme Court gleaned through
Seventh Schedule, List-II, Entry 2 of the Constitution and
held that the legislative power of the Union to provide for
regular police force of one State to exercise power and
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
jurisdiction in any area outside the State can only be
exercised with the consent of the Government of that
particular State in which such area is situated. However, it
was further held that notwithstanding the wide powers
under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the
Courts must bear in mind certain self imposed limitations
on the exercise of the Constitutional powers. The
extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously
and in exceptional situations where it would become
necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in
investigation or where any incident may have national or
international ramifications or where such an order is
necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing
fundamental rights.
66. What the Supreme Court said in the aforenoted
case was in continuation of the judgment in Secretary,
Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and
Others v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Another; (2002) 5 SCC
521. In that case it dealt with the powers of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High
Court could order an inquiry to be conducted by the CBI
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
but only in such cases where the Court comes to a prima
facie conclusion that there is a need for such an inquiry.
Similar views were expressed by the Supreme Court in
Sujatha Ravi Kiran alias Sujatasahu v. State of Kerala
and Others; (2016) 7 SCC 597.
67. Taking into account the aforenoted string of
judgments, the Supreme Court had declined investigation
by CBI in K. Saravanan Karuppasamy and another v.
State of Tamil Nadu and Others; (2014) 10 SCC 406;
Sudipta Lenka v. State of Odisha and Others; (2014) 11
SCC 527 as also in Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan
Tapovan Mandir and Another v. State of Jharkhand and
Others; (2019) 6 SCC 777.
68. In the present set of facts, the petitioners have
not been able to make out a case for investigation into the
so-called criminal misconduct of the members of the
Commission or of any unholy alliance between the question
solvers, persons interested in leaking the question papers for
using it commercially and disturbing the purity of the
recruitment process in a systemic way.
69. In the present case, it appears from the
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
pleadings of the petitioners that EOU of the State was on an
alert mode even before the examination had begun.
70. Can this be read as a proof of question paper
leak or malpractice having surely been followed?
71. What the petitioners have contended is that
there was serious doubt about the leak of question papers,
or else the EOU would not have been ready to start
investigation. The EOU has submitted its report. The FIRs
registered on 13.12.2024 are being investigated. Few of the
examinees have also been debarred after having been
identified as trouble makers. There is nothing on record
which would prompt this Court in ordering for an inquiry
into the conduct of the Commission or of the examination
process in its entirety, where suggestions have been made
that malpractices were rampant and there was a question
paper leak.
72. True it is, that the question papers leaked at
around 01:00 P.M. on 13.12.2024, but that was an isolated
and episodic incident at one particular centre. That was the
time when all the examinees were sitting in sanitized
examination halls. There could be no way in which such
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
question paper leak could have benefited any of the
examinees.
73. However, we deprecate the practice of the
Commission holding a meeting with coaching institute
management, avowedly for the purpose of preventing any
mis-information to students who are associated with such
coaching centres as also for seeking help from them, who
have great sway and control over a large number of
students.
74. The experience shows that coaching centres
have burgeoned everywhere including the State of Bihar
with heavy enlistment, which we are not sure, whether is a
bane or boon.
75. It is beyond cavil that the education system
has changed drastically over the last couple of decades.
There was a time when it was not appreciated by reputed
school management, if a child went for coaching classes
which was generally provided for students, who could not
compete with the rest of the class, by the school itself. Over
a passage of time, on a perception of the success rate of
students in taking admissions in 'A' Grade Colleges or in
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
recruitment process being very high, many such coaching
institutes were established.
76. The most glaring critique of coaching
institutes in India is their rampant commercialization of
education. Commodification of imparting education into a
business enterprise, driven by profit motives rather than a
genuine commitment to knowledge and intellectual growth
is by no means encouraging.
77. It may offer a great avenue for exam
preparation, but as the critics say, it is hardly a centre for
learning.
78. A French Economist and Parliamentarian,
Frederic Bastiat, propounded an idea of broken window
economics or broken window fallacy, which can be said to
be applicable in case of coaching institutes.
79. Bastiat gave an example of a window being
broken; the owner hiring a carpenter to fix it; the carpenter
using the money to buy from the baker and so on. This was
not a virtuous cycle; it is the broken window fallacy. The
students aspiring to get admission in good colleges or get in
service would go to school for their certification and would
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
also attend coaching classes. The teachers of coaching
classes, who perhaps would be teachers in their vocation,
would not teach in schools or colleges with such devotion
as it would only fetch them their salary which would be far
too less than what they would earn in coaching institutes.
Had the boundaries of coaching institutes be limited to this
only, perhaps likening it to a broken window fallacy would
have been too harsh but the coaching centres becoming the
rallying centres for agitation requires immediate concern of
the authorities.
80. Let us have a look at the facts of this case in
this perspective.
81. Right after the issuance of the advertisement
inviting online applications, the students/aspirants appeared
to have got a whiff that BPSC would subject the results of
the impending examination to the process of normalization
or scaling them.
82. Where from this information had come?
83. Students in large numbers started agitating
even before the examination.
84. Who gave fillip to such a movement, when
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
there was no reference of it, either in the advertisement or in
the SOP issued by the Commission?
85. The aspirants, instead of preparing for the on-
coming examination, were busy sitting on Dharna with
support from the owners of the coaching centres, most of
whom gave bytes on social media.
86. Were they not whipping up the sentiments and
susceptibilities of the students?
87. Normalization is the process of adjusting raw
scores to account for variations in the difficulty levels of
exam papers administered across multiple shifts. This
statistical adjustment is a mechanism employed by
examination taking body to ensure fairness and equity in the
recruitment process. The principle and justification
mandating normalization is that no individual or group
ought to be subjected to arbitrary or unequal treatment. To
iron out the discrepancy which arises as a result of
unavoidable possibility of different papers being of different
difficulty levels that the process of normalization is
adopted. Individual discomfitures are inevitable in such a
process, which cannot be the basis to unseat the entire
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
examination.
88. In the context of competitive exams,
normalization eliminates the possibility of candidates being
disadvantaged or advantaged merely due to the difficulty
level of paper that they have taken. By equalizing the scores
across different shifts, normalization facilitates a more just
and equitable assessment of candidates.
89. There were no shifts in the preliminary
examination; only different sets of question papers. There
does not appear to be, on record, any assessment of the
differing level of standard of rigor for the students to
apprehend that the result would be subject to normalization.
90. Even if it were contemplated, there was no
reason for students to agitate. It appears that only out of a
nefarious desire of the coaching centre bosses to have more
enlistment for more profit, instead of students being
explained the concept of normalization, they were
supported in their agitation, even before the exam is started.
This was not a responsible act.
91. It appears that perhaps because of the
perception of the Commission that these owners exercise
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
great control over the students, a meeting was fixed by the
Commission with coaching centre owners to explain to the
students and also secure help from them.
92. We repeat, this was wholly unnecessary, as it
only gave these coaching centre owners the impetus to enter
the arena and show their solidarity with students in the hope
of getting more enlistments.
93. We deprecate this in the strongest of the terms.
94. It appears from the records that when the
agitation was going beyond control, the Commission issued
a press-note that there would be no normalization. The
Commission also ought not to have taken such a stand and
should have left it to a fair assessment later, but before the
evaluation of the examination papers and publishing of the
results, whether normalization was necessary. Two groups
emerged unnecessarily; one being the proponent and the
other the opponent of subjecting the result to normalization.
This led to the lingering of the agitation. It appears that
even after the re-examination of the candidates of one
particular centre on 04.01.2025, a note was issued by the
BPSC that there would not be any normalization.
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
95. We do not wish to comment on the decision of
the Commission in this regard for the lack of expertise to
get into the intricacies of the normalization procedure as
also for no evidence being available on record, either for or
against normalization, either of which decision, to be called
arbitrary or to predict that it would bring unsustainable
results.
96. We only intend to say that the Commission did
not handle the situation appropriately.
97. Though we have found that a very detailed
SOP has been formulated by the Commission, but it brings
succor to none if it is not followed in letter and spirit. There
should be zero lapse and zero tolerance to any unfair means,
under any circumstance.
98. We are of the view that mere formulating SOP
by the BPSC would serve no purpose. We, therefore,
suggest that a High Level Committee be constituted by the
BPSC on a permanent basis of suitably qualified experts
who could ensure a comprehensive review of the security
measures, candidate verification process and the overall
management of the examination. They could also suggest to
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
the BPSC in making structural changes for addressing the
vulnerabilities in the process. The conduct of an
examination taking body, as big as BPSC, ought not to
waiver and prevaricate on issues of importance and
relevance.
99. We find that notwithstanding the SOP, there
were lapses, logistical and structural, which does not augur
well for the future. The number of the applicants will keep
on rising by the years. If at all trust has to be restored in the
examination system, suitable arrangements are required to
be made to prevent any future malpractice, cheating or
question leak.
100. The Committee so constituted should
evaluate and recommend reforms in the mechanism of
administration of the exams at all stages i.e. from the
issuance of advertisement to publishing of the final result.
The Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) also requires to
be firmed up.
101. Needless to say that one of the suggestions
should be for a comprehensive CCTV surveillance at all
places which could become vulnerable in the examination
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
process. The Committee can also serve as a robust
grievance redressal centre, if it develops the wherewithals
for allowing the candidates and others to register complaints
regarding the irregularities in the examination process.
Scientific tools, which are advancing by the day, ought to be
taken use of in strengthening the data security protocols,
encryption etc., which would prevent any leak of the
question papers.
102. The Supreme Court in Vanshika Yadav
(Supra) has suggested that the Testing Agency may consider
including digital watermarking and tracking technologies
for tracing the origin of leaked documents and identify
potential breaches in the electronic dissemination process.
There should be audits at regular intervals to evaluate the
effectiveness of the present security measures and further
explore technological innovations to enhance the security
and efficiency. In that connection, digital authentication,
secure online platforms and other emerging technologies
could be thought of.
103. Thus, to tie the strings together-
(I) There is no definite evidence of malpractice at
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
all the centres on 13.12.2024;
(II) There is proof of disturbance at BPP Centre at
Patna with largest number of examinees;
(III) The Commission taking note of it, held a re-
examination for that centre on 04.01.2025;
(IV) The aforenoted decision of the Commission
cannot be faulted with, as the law on the subject is clear that
if it is possible to segregate tainted candidates from
untainted, it must be done rather than cancelling the whole
examination;
(V) The question paper had leaked from one
centre, namely, BPP Centre at Patna, at around 1:00 P.M.,
when the examinees in other centres were sitting in the
sanitized examination halls;
(VI) There is, thus, no proof of any candidate
having benefited from such paper leak;
(VII) The evidence offered by the petitioners for
mass scale malpractice and paper leak are only Facebook
and 'X' (Twitter) posts, post the examination;
(VIII) The success rate at different centres and in
the re-examination is not so stark as to definitely conclude
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
that there were systemic flaws;
(IX) The Economic Offence Unit of the State
getting on alert mode before the examination is no proof to
conclude that question paper had leaked before the
examination had started so as to justify the demand for a
total re-examination;
(X) The evidence offered of some candidates
having got special treatment at the State expense, even if
accepted to be true, would be no proof of paper leak or
cheating on a mass scale;
(XI) The Commission had called a meeting of the
owners/teachers of coaching centres for facilitating
communication with students on whom they have good
control as also for the purposes of eliciting suggestions for
peaceful, effective and fair conduct of examination; which
action of the Commission, though is neither appropriate nor
appreciable;
(XII) That few of the questions in the examination
tallied with questions in the Model Question Paper of the
coaching centres is again no proof of the Commission
having taken Question Banks from such coaching centres;
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
(XIII) There could always be common questions
from Question Banks of other competitive examinations in
and outside the State;
(XIV) The argument with respect to
impermissibility of holding another exam for few of the
students on the premise of it being violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India is unacceptable and also
in teeth of several decisions of the Supreme Court, which
justify limited re-examination;
(XV) It is always best left open to the subjective
assessment of the examination-taking body to evaluate the
standard of difficulty levels in different examination papers
in different shifts or in a situation of limited re-examination
to adopt the procedure of normalization of results;
(XVI) There is an assumption that key answers
provided by the examination taking body on the basis of the
opinion of the Subject Experts is correct unless it is proved
to be wrong;
(XVII) The objections to the key answers ought
not to be by any inferential process of reasoning or by a
process of rationalization;
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
(XVIII) The Commission appears to have
considered several suggestions and relied on the Experts for
formulation of key answers;
(XIX) Based on the suggestions and the opinion of
the Subject Experts, many questions were deleted.
(XX) The objections were dealt with giving
reasons in support of the answer;
(XXI) A Court of law ought not to re-evaluate or
scrutinize the answers in a quest for finding out the correct
answer despite consideration by the Subject Experts, as it
has no expertise in the matter;
(XXII) Any interference on the basis of objection
to the key answers with regard to its correctness can be
entertained only if the key answer is palpably and
demonstrably wrong;
(XXIII) In the event of a doubt about the answer,
the benefit should always go to the Examination Authority
rather than to the candidates;
(XXIV) No material or ground was suggested to
direct for any CBI enquiry in the matter;
(XXV) The Commission, as on date, does not
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
intend to go for normalization;
(XXVI) In any event, a Court cannot enter the
arena for the lack of expertise;
(XXVII) Students agitating against normalization
even before the examination was a knee-jerk reaction where
the students had fallen prey to rumours;
(XXVIII) They instead of being counseled were
unfortunately provoked;
(XXIX) Though a detailed SOP has been
formulated by the Commission with regard to every aspect
of the examination taking process, but there appears to have
been lapses but those are not of the kind and magnitude
which would discredit the purity and fairness of the
examination;
(XXX) That the portal server was slow before the
last date of filling up of the online application, but there has
been no complaint of any student not having been able to
fill up the form because of the portal being not accessible;
(XXXI) The allegation of the jammers not being
effective is based on no evidence;
(XXXII) There were torn TES bags only at one
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
centre;
(XXXIII) Malpractice, cheating or question leak
was only episodic with no evidence of the answers having
reached the examinees while they were writing their papers;
(XXXIV) The coaching centre owners ought to be
more responsible in their conduct, which is expected of
them.
(XXXV) A high level committee be constituted by
the Commission on a permanent basis of experts who would
ensure a review of the security measures and over-all
management of the examination.
(XXXVI) The Commission must make structural
changes for addressing the vulnerabilities in the process of
examination. The SOP requires to be stepped up and efforts
should be made to follow the SOP to its letters. A dedicated
wing should be created to register complaints during the
examination process at all stages. Higher technology of
digital water-marking and tracking be adopted.
104. Based on the aforenoted circumstances and
our observations, we are of the view that the prayers made
on behalf of the petitioners cannot be acceded to.
Patna High Court CWJC No.752 of 2025 dt 28-03-2025
105. The writ petitions are dismissed.
106. The Commission shall carry out the Mains
Examination, ensuring that the process is peaceful, fair and
transparent. The Commission shall also consider the
suggestions given by us for firming up structurally to deal
with such situations.
107. All the petitions are disposed off accordingly.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
Partha Sarthy, J: I agree.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
krishna/PKP
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 19.03.2025
Uploading Date 28.03.2025
Transmission Date
