Patna High Court
Harsha ShekharversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
There is no statutory right to re‑evaluation of answer‑books under the BPSC rules, and the petition for re‑evaluation is untenable.
Summary
The petitioner, Harsha Shekhar, a B.C. (female) candidate, applied for the 32nd Bihar Judicial Service Examination and after clearing the preliminary, main and interview stages, was omitted from the final selection list despite scoring 501 marks, one point short of the 502‑mark cut‑off for her category. She filed a writ petition seeking a re‑check and re‑evaluation of specific General Knowledge questions, hoping to gain additional marks and be declared selected. The respondents argued that the examination results had already been declared, appointments made, and that the Bihar Public Service Commission’s rules do not provide for re‑evaluation of answer books. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, BPSC (2004 6 SCC 714) and other precedents, holding that in the absence of a statutory provision, candidates have no right to demand re‑evaluation and such orders would disrupt the merit‑based selection process. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The judgment reaffirmed the settled position that re‑evaluation is not permissible under the Commission’s regulations.
Issues considered
- Whether a candidate is entitled to a re‑check and re‑evaluation of answer‑book marks under the Bihar Public Service Commission’s rules
- Whether the court can intervene to alter the final result of a competitive examination after the result has been declared and appointments made
Subjects
- re‑evaluation
- public service commission
- judicial service examination
- writ petition
- merit based selection
- reservation
- cut‑off marks
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5947 of 2025
======================================================
Harsha Shekhar D/o Shashi Shekhar Singh Resident of Sector J/172 Peoples
Co-Operative Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, District-Patna, Bihar-
800020.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, General
Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru
Marg (Bailey Road), Patna-800001, Bihar.
4. The Controlller of Examination, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg (Bailey Road), Patna-800001, Bihar.
5. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru
Marg (Bailey Road), Patna-800001, Bihar.
6. The Deputy Secretary, Bihar Public service Commission, 15, Jawahar Lal
Nehru Marg (Bailey Road), Patna-800001, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Lakshmi Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kanishk Kaustubh, Advocate
Mr. Rajnish Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Government Pleader (26)
For the Respondent-BPSC: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kanishk Shankar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 21-01-2026
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner,
Harsha Shekhar with the following prayer:-
“(i) For issuance of a direction to the respondent
Patna High Court CWJC No.5947 of 2025 dt.21-01-2026
2/9
authorities to re-check & re-evaluate the question-answer
of Q. Nos.-3(C), 5(A), 5(C), and 14 (D) of General
Knowledge Paper of the petitioner relating to Main
Examination of the 32nd Bihar Judicial Service
Examination against Advertisement No.-23/2023.
(ii) For that the petitioner further prays that after re-
check & re-evaluation of the aforementioned Question-
Answers of the General Knowledge, the petitioner may
be awarded 3-4 additional marks and she may be
declared selected as the petitioner secured total 501
marks and the Cut-off marks for B.C. Female category
is 502 marks only.”
2. It is the case of the petitioner that an advertisement
bearing Advertisement No.-23/2023 was published by the Bihar
Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the
B.P.S.C.”) on 20.02.2023 for 32nd Bihar Judicial Service
Examination (Lower Division) for filling up 155 posts from the
eligible candidates applying the reservation policy applicable in
the State of Bihar. There was provision for 35% horizontal
reservation for female in all category. As per the advertisement,
a candidate must be a law graduate from the
University/Institutions recognized by Bar Council of India, New
Delhi and he/she should be more than 22 years of age as on
01.08.2022 and should be less than 35 years of age as on
01.08.2019. The retirement age of the judicial officer has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.5947 of 2025 dt.21-01-2026
3/9
fixed as 60 years. The selection process as per the advertisement
was Preliminary Examination, then Main Examination and the
Interview. The Preliminary Examination as per the
advertisement was to be objective type consisting of two papers
with total marks of 250, while the Mains Examination
comprised of 5 compulsory papers and 3 optional papers,
carrying a total of 1050 marks. The interview of the successful
candidates in the Mains Examination was to be for 100 marks.
The petitioner being eligible for the aforementioned post
registered her application online and then filed online
application form and accordingly Registration No. 32007977
and Application No.-004899 was generated. The petitioner
belongs to B.C. (female) category, hence while submitting
application form she also enclosed her Non-Creamy Layer B.C.
category caste certificate. The admit card for the preliminary
examination was issued and the petitioner was allotted Roll No.-
107208, whereafter she appeared in the examination held on
04.06.2023 and she was declared to be qualified in the result of
the preliminary examination published on 26.09.2023 on the
official website of B.P.S.C. The petitioner thereafter, filled up
the online application form for the Mains Examination and a
fresh admit card for the Mains Examination was issued and she
Patna High Court CWJC No.5947 of 2025 dt.21-01-2026
4/9
appeared in the Mains Examination held in between 25.11.2023
to 29.11.2023. The petitioner was declared successful in the
result of the Mains Examination, published on the website of the
B.P.S.C. on 30.08.2024. The B.P.S.C. has then issued an
interview letter to the petitioner which was scheduled for
14.11.2024. The petitioner appeared before the interview board
and she is stated to have replied to the satisfaction of the
members of the interview Board. The final result of the 32 nd
Bihar Judicial Service Examination (Lower Division) was
declared on 28.11.2024 on the official website of B.P.S.C., but
the name of the petitioner was not included in the final selection
list.
3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent nos. 3 to 6 has raised a preliminary objection to the
effect that the result of examination has already been published
in the year 2024 and the appointments have been made in the
year 2025 as also the successful candidates have already joined
their respective posting. It is also submitted that there is no
provision for re-evaluation of answer books as far as the
B.P.S.C. is concerned.
4. It is a well settled proposition of law that re-
evaluation is not permissible and in the case of B.P.S.C. itself,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5947 of 2025 dt.21-01-2026
5/9
the Hon’ble Apex Court has held so in its judgment rendered in
the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar
Public Service Commission & Ors., reported in (2004) 6 SCC
714, paragraph nos. 7 to 9 whereof are reproduced hereinbelow:
“7. We have heard the appellant (writ-petitioner) in
person and learned counsel for the respondents at
considerable length. The main question which arises for
consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was
justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer-book of
the appellant in General Science paper. Under the
relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision
wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-
evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for
scrutiny only wherein the answer- books are seen for the
purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a
candidate have been examined and whether there has
been any mistake in the totaling of marks of each
question and noting them correctly on the first cover
page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after
scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to
the appellant in the General Science paper. In the
absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer
books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an
examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or
ask for re-evaluation of his marks. This question was
examined in considerable detail in Maharashtra State
Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education
and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth and
Patna High Court CWJC No.5947 of 2025 dt.21-01-2026
6/9
others, AIR 1984 SC 1543. In this case, the relevant rules
provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an
application made to that effect by a candidate. Some of
the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be
allowed to inspect the answer-books and the Board be
directed to conduct re-evaluation of such of the answer-
books as the petitioners may demand after inspection.
The High Court held that the rule providing for
verification of marks gave an implied power to the
examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and
also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The
judgment of the High Court was set aside and it was
held that in absence of a specific provision conferring a
right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re-
evaluated, no such direction can be issued. There is no
dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission
there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his
answer-books re-evaluated. In such a situation, the
prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was
wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had
clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant
re-evaluated.
8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned
Single Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many
candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re-
evaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the Court
will pass orders on different dates as and when writ
petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then
send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for
Patna High Court CWJC No.5947 of 2025 dt.21-01-2026
7/9
re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The
examination conducted by the Commission being a
competitive examination, the declaration of final result
will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will
remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a
candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He
may come forward with a plea that the marks as
originally awarded to him may be taken into
consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject
may throw many problems and in the larger interest,
they must be avoided.
9. Even otherwise, the manner in which the learned
Single Judge had the answer-book of the appellant in
General Science paper re-evaluated cannot be justified.
The answer-book was not sent directly by the Court
either to the Registrar of the Patna University or to the
Principal of the Science College. A photocopy of the
answer-book was handed-over to the standing counsel
for the Patna University who returned the same to the
Court after some time and a statement was made to the
effect that the same had been examined by two teachers
of Patna Science College. The names of the teachers
were not even disclosed to the Court. The examination in
question is a competitive examination where the
comparative merit of a candidate has to be judged. It is,
therefore, absolutely necessary that a uniform standard
is applied in examining the answer-books of all the
candidates. It is the specific case of the Commission that
in order to achieve such an objective, a centralized
Patna High Court CWJC No.5947 of 2025 dt.21-01-2026
8/9
system of evaluation of answer-books is adopted wherein
different examiners examine the answer-books on the
basis of model answers prepared by the Head Examiner
with the assistance of other examiners. It was pleaded in
the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the Commission
and which fact has not been disputed that the model
answer was not supplied to the two teachers of the Patna
Science College. There can be a variation of standard in
awarding marks by different examiners. The manner in
which the answer-books were got evaluated, the marks
awarded therein cannot be treated as sacrosanct &
consequently the direction issued by the ld. Single Judge
to the Commission to treat the marks of the appellant in
General Science paper as 63 cannot be justified.”
5. In this regard, we would like to refer to a judgment
rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in
somewhat similar matter, i.e. in the case of Shambhu Nath
Mishra vs. The Union of Indian, through the Chairman,
Railway Board & Ors., reported in 2026 (1) PLJR 172, wherein
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have been
taken note of, which are as follows:-
“(i) Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar
Public Service Commission & Ors., reported in (2004) 6
SCC 714;
(ii) Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5947 of 2025 dt.21-01-2026
9/9
Mukesh Thakur & Anr. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759;
(iii) Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357;
(iv) Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309;
(v) Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences vs. Dr.
Yerra Trinadh & Ors., reported in (2022) 18 SCC 716;
(vi) Judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Singh vs. The
High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors., reported in 2016
(1) PLJR 865.
6. In view of the settled position of law and the limited
scope of this Court as enunciated in the aforesaid judgments, we
do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same
stands dismissed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
kanchan/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 27.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…