Patna High Court
Sonali KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Bihar Public Service Commission is not obligated to re‑evaluate answer sheets where its rules provide only for re‑totalling, and therefore the petition for mandamus is untenable.
Summary
The petitioner, Sonali Kumari, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking a mandamus directing the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) to re‑evaluate her answer sheet of the 65th Combined Competitive Examination and to reserve a seat if she qualifies. She alleged that a mere perusal of her answer sheet showed that the marks awarded were unjustified. The BPSC contended that its regulations allow only re‑totalling of answer sheets, not re‑evaluation, and thus the prayer could not be granted. The Court examined prior decisions of the same High Court, notably Prabhat Kumar v. State of Bihar, which held that re‑evaluation is not permissible where the rules provide only for re‑totalling. Relying on those precedents, the Court concluded that the issue was already settled and no statutory provision supported the petitioner's relief. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and refused all reliefs sought.
Issues considered
- What is the scope of the Bihar Public Service Commission's authority to re‑evaluate answer sheets under its regulations?
- Can a writ of mandamus be issued to compel the BPSC to re‑evaluate an answer sheet when only re‑totalling is provided for?
- Does the petitioner have a right to a fresh result based on re‑evaluation of the examination answer sheet?
Subjects
- mandamus
- re‑evaluation
- Bihar Public Service Commission
- public service examinations
- writ jurisdiction
- re‑totalling
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1467 of 2022
======================================================
Sonali Kumari Daughter of Shri Sanjay Prasad, Resident of Village near
Gramin Bank, Tehta, P.O. Tehta, PS Makhdumpur, District - Jehanabad
(804427).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Chairman 15, Jawahar Lal
Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru
Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
5. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru
Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
6. The Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar
Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
7. Sadaf Alam, Daughter of not known to the petitioner, Resident of Not
known to the petitioner, Roll No. 100072, through the Secretary, Bihar
Public Service Commision, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road,
Patna.
8. Salma Khatoon, Daughter of not known to petitioner, Resident of not known
to the petitioner, Roll No. 100481, through the Secretary, Bihar Public
Service Commision, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
9. Zeba Mobeen, daughter of not known to petitioner, Resident of not known to
the petitioner, Roll No. 509106, through the Secretary, Bihar Public Service
Commision, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
10. Neelam Raj, Daughter of not known to petitioner, Resident of not known to
the petitioner, Roll No.239122, through the Secretary, Bihar Public Service
Commision, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
11. Mehnaz Jabeen, Daughter of not known to petitioner, Resident of not known
to the petitioner, Roll No. 349330, through the Secretary, Bihar Public
Service Commision, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
12. Maimun Nisha, Daughter of not known to petitioner, Resident of not known
to the petitioner, Roll No. 178993, through the Secretary, Bihar Public
Service Commision, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
13. Shana Alam, Daughter of not known to petitioner, Resident of not known to
the petitioner, Roll No. 324412, through the Secretary, Bihar Public Service
Commision, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
14. Suby Masoud, Daughter of not known to petitioner, Resident of not known
to the petitioner, Roll No. 296312, through the Secretary, Bihar Public
Service Commision, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
15. Shivani Mridula, Daughter of not known to petitioner, Resident of not
Patna High Court CWJC No.1467 of 2022(5) dt.03-04-2026
2/4
known to the petitioner, Roll No. 469766, through the Secretary, Bihar
Public Service Commision, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road,
Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate
Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Ghosarvey, AC to AAG-3
For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kr. Jha, Advocate
Mr. Prabhakar Pahepuri, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
5 03-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission (‘BPSC’ in
short).
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following reliefs :-
“i. For issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of MANDAMUS or any other
writ in similar nature, Commanding and
directing the Respondent Commission to
reevaluate the answer sheet of Mains
Examination of 65th Combined Competitive
exam pertaining writ petitioner and after doing
same, the fresh result/marks be declare for the
petitioner on the ground the a bare perusal of
her answer sheet would manifest that that the
petitioner is sanguine about her answer sheet
content and in no circumstances the marks
allotted to her as per her response in her answer
sheet can be justified.
ii. For Issuance of an appropriate
Patna High Court CWJC No.1467 of 2022(5) dt.03-04-2026
3/4
writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding
and directing the Respondent Commission to
reserve a seat for the petitioner in case she
qualifies for same after process of revaluation.
iii. For a declaration that Respondent
Commission which is a constitutional body and
which is responsible for selection of different
civil post, it is incumbent upon them to conduct
such examinations not only on regular intervals
but also conduct of such examination should be
carried on with much diligence and care and not
only the fate of students who appear for such
examination is at stake, it is the whole State itself
whose affairs are managed by way of such
persons who qualifies such exams.
iv. For issuance of any other
appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/
directions for which the writ petitioner is entitled
under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Without going into the details of the case of the
parties, it may be observed here that the case of the respondent-
BPSC is that the prayer made by the petitioner for re-evaluation
of the answer-sheets cannot be acceded to for the reason of there
being no provision of re-evaluation but only of re-totalling.
4. Similar matters came to be decided in different
cases by this Court, copies of which have been brought on
record as annexure to the counter affidavit being order dated
23.2.2015 passed in CWJC no.1137 of 2014 (Prabhat Kumar vs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1467 of 2022(5) dt.03-04-2026
4/4
The State of Bihar & Ors.) and order dated 25.4.2016 passed in
LPA no.927 of 2015 (Prabhat Kumar vs. The State of Bihar &
Ors.).
5. In view of the judgments enclosed with the counter
affidavit and having gone through the contents thereof, in the
opinion of the Court, the issue in the matter already stands
concluded.
6. No relief can be granted to the petitioner and the
application is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
U
Checking your session…