Patna High Court
Sidharth Shankar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court held that it could not directly intervene to recalculate the marks but directed the petitioner to file a representation for the Commission to reconsider the award, and disposed of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Sidharth Shankar Singh, applied for the post of Principal under a Bihar State University Service Commission (BSUSC) advertisement and was awarded a lower academic performance score than stipulated, resulting in a downgraded merit rank. He filed a writ petition seeking recalculation of his academic score and revision of his merit position. The court noted that the grievance pertained solely to the award of marks and referenced earlier decisions (C.W.J.C. No. 2482 of 2025 and Dr. Kumar Chandan vs. Indira Gandhi Institute) which limited judicial interference in selection‑committee decisions. The court held that it could not directly order a recalculation but could direct the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the Commission for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the petitioner was given two weeks to submit his representation and the Commission was instructed to re‑evaluate the marks within four weeks, after which the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the court can direct the BSUSC to recalculate the petitioner’s academic performance score and revise his merit position.
- Whether the marks awarded to the petitioner contravene the stipulations of the advertisement and can be challenged.
- What is the scope of judicial review over the decisions of a university selection committee in appointment matters.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Academic performance score
- Merit position
- Selection committee
- Judicial review
- Right to Information Act
- University service commission
- Appointment
- Marks recalculation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10283 of 2025
======================================================
Sidharth Shankar Singh Son of Late Dharamdeo Singh Resident of 205,
Kamla Apartment, Visheweshraiya Nagar, Behind Ishan International Girls
School, P.S.-Rupaspur, District-Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Bihar State University Service Commission, Patna through its Chairman
3. The Secretary, Bihar State University Service Commission, Patna.
4. Prof. Jawahar Lal, Presently Working as Vice Chancellor, Tilka Manjhi
Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur, Resident of Road No.5, House No.5, Rajiv
Nagar, P.S.-Rajiv Nagar, District-Patna.
5. Prof. Shailendra Kumar Chaturvedi, Presently Working as Vice Chancellor,
of Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara, Resident of 303, Minara Tower,
Omaxe Heights, Vidhutikhand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226016.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prashant Sinha, Adv.
For the BSUSC : Mr. Tuhin Shankar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-02-2026
Heard Mr. Prashant Sinha, learned Advocate for the
petitioner and Mr. Tuhin Shankar, learned Advocate for the
Bihar State University Service Commission. The State is
represented through Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Advocate.
2. Before pressing the present writ petition, at the
outset, learned Advocate for the petitioner made it clear that
now his grievance is only confined to (i) and (vi), which reads
as follows:-
“(i) For issuance of necessary
Patna High Court CWJC No.10283 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
2/7
direction upon the respondent
Bihar State University Service
Commission to recalculate the
academic performance score of
the petitioner in terms of
advertisement BSUSC/
PRINCIPAL-01/2023 dated 15-11-
2023, for the post of Principal, as
the petitioner had obtained the
academic performance score of
556 in terms of Table-II and
Table- II (A) of the advertisement
and as such, he was required to be
awarded with 60 marks for his
academic performance in terms of
Table-III of the advertisement, but
he has been awarded with only 50
marks, which resulted into
downgrading of the merit position
of the petitioner in the final result
at serial no. 48.
vi) For necessary direction upon
the respondent authorities of the
Commission to revise the merit
position of the petitioner in the
result contained in memo no. 1072
dated 16-04-2025 after
recalculation of his academic
performance score and marks
obtained in fresh interview
conducted by an interview board
comprising of independent
members and allot the University
to the petitioner as per his revised
merit position and choice given at
the time of submitting the online
application.”
3. Briefly stated that on the recommendation of the
Selection Committee constituted by the J.P.University, Chapra,
the petitioner was appointed as Principal in the J.P.University,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10283 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
3/7
and he was posted Narayan College, Goriyakothi, Siwan on
21.10.2009. Since then, the petitioner has been discharging the
duty as Principal in the various colleges under the
J.P.University. The petitioner also functioned as Pro-Vice
Chancellor of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University
from 20.08.2021 to 19.08.2024.
4. In the meanwhile, the Bihar State University
Service Commission published an advertisement being
numbered 01/2023 on 15.11.2023, inviting application for
making appointment on the post of Principals in various
constituent colleges and different Universities. The petitioner
duly appeared for the interview and finally the result was
declared vide letter no. 1072 dated 16.04.2025 by the Secretary
of the Commission and the petitioner was declared successful in
the unreserved category with its rank at serial no. 48 and
accordingly posted in Lalit Narayan Mithila University,
Darbhanga. The petitioner on being dissatisfied with the marks
and the commensurate position awarded, got an information
under Right to Information Act and thereupon he came to know
that he has not been awarded the marks in terms with the
stipulation of the advertisement. Hence, the present writ
petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10283 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
4/7
5. Mr. Tuhin Shankar, learned Advocate for the
Commission fairly submitted that it is not the case that the
petitioner has been declared unsuccessful, rather his grievance is
only with respect to improper awarding of the marks in terms
with the prescriptions of the advertisement. Identical issue has
come up for consideration before this Court in C.W.J.C. No.
2482 of 2025, wherein the Court having taken note of the
grievance of the petitioner limited to re-evaluation and scrutiny
of marks, hold it to be not a matter of right. However, relegated
that matter to the Commission to re-evaluate the marks obtained
by the petitioner on the basis of his experience only. Further
reliance has also been placed on a decision rendered by the
learned Division Bench in Dr. Kumar Chandan vs. Indira
Gandhi Institute of Medical Science & Ors., L.P.A. No. 318 of
2021 specially wherein the Court has been pleased to hold as
follows:-
“32. We are of the view that in the
present case, selection committee
of eight members, who were
experts in the field, have assessed
22 candidates and awarded marks
under different leads to each of the
22 candidates by adopting the
similar criteria. It would not be
open for this Court to go into
detail and then to scrutinize the
decision taken by the selection
committee. We are of the view that
Patna High Court CWJC No.10283 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
5/7
awarding of the marks under head
(III) to (IX) cannot be said to be
mechanical exercise or mere
administrative work or clerical
work of the selection committee
and while awarding marks under
different heads, the committee has
to consider the relevant aspects. It
appears that the learned Single
Judge has carried out the
impugned exercise as if the
learned Single Judge was deciding
the appeal filed by the original
petitioner against the decision of
the selection committee. As
observed hereinabove, such as
exercise of sitting in an appeal
over the decision of the selection
committee is not permissible. It is
well settled that the scope of
judicial review is very limited in
these type of cases and the
decision of selection committee
can be interfered with only under
certain circumstances as held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the
present case, the petitioner has not
alleged any malafides, bias or
favoritism on the part of the
selection committee nor there is
any illegality or irregularity in
appointment of the selection
committee and the procedure
adopted by the said selection
committee. Even the decision of
the selection committee cannot be
termed as arbitrary and, therefore,
we are of the view that learned
Single Judge has, by going into
the detail and scrutinizing the
marks, given to the petitioner and
the private respondent under each
Patna High Court CWJC No.10283 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
6/7
head was beyond the purview of
the judicial review. Accordingly,
the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge is required
to be set aside.”
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the fact that the grievance of the petitioner is only confined that
the marks awarded to him is not in terms with the stipulations of
the advertisement and the statute and in identical matter the
learned Single Judge has relegated the matter with a liberty to
the petitioner to file a detailed representation, bringing all the
facts before the Commission, who is directed to consider the
marks awarded afresh, this Court deems it fit and proper to
dispose of the writ petition in similar terms, giving liberty to the
petitioner to file a detailed representation, bringing on record all
the anomalies in awarding the marks as has been mentioned in
reply to rejoinder of respondent nos. 2 and 3, specially
paragraph no. 7 to 10 preferably within a period of two weeks
from today.
7. In case such a representation is filed, the
Commission shall look into the matter and pass appropriate
necessary orders.
8. In case a re-calculation would be required, the same
shall also be done preferably within a further period of four
Patna High Court CWJC No.10283 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
7/7
weeks’.
9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed off.
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…