Patna High Court
Amar KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court held that the cancellation was a decision simpliciter, not a stigmatic decision, and therefore re‑evaluation was not permissible, leading to dismissal of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner Amar Kumar challenged the cancellation of his answer booklet in the upper division clerk mains examination, contending that the cancellation under instruction No.5 was arbitrary and that the authority did not specify how the instruction was breached. He sought a direction to set aside the published result, re‑evaluate his answer sheet, and prepare a fresh merit list for interview. The State defended the cancellation as a valid exercise of its administrative discretion. The court examined whether the cancellation constituted a decision simpliciter or a stigmatic decision and whether a writ court could order re‑evaluation. It held that the cancellation was a decision simpliciter, not amenable to judicial interference, and that re‑evaluation was not permissible. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of answer booklets under instruction No.5 is a valid administrative action or arbitrary.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to re‑evaluation of his answer sheet.
- Whether the decision constitutes a decision simpliciter or a stigmatic decision for purposes of judicial review.
- Whether the writ court can intervene and set aside the examination result.
Subjects
- public service examination
- answer booklet cancellation
- instruction No.5
- decision simpliciter
- writ petition
- re‑evaluation
- administrative discretion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.717 of 2026
======================================================
Amar Kumar S/O-Randhir Paswan, Resident of Village- Katesar, P.S.- Bihta,
Distt- Patna- 801103. (Roll no. 214473).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Secretary, Department of Law and
Justice, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Registrar General, The High Court of Judicature at Patna, Patna.
3. The Convenor, Centralised Selection and Appointment Committee-Cum-
District and Sessions Judge, Patna, Judges Court Road, Civil Court, Patna,
P.O.- Bankipore, Distt- Patna- 800004.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nishant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ranjit Kumar (AC to GP-26)
For the Resp. nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent nos. 2
& 3.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions for the following relief/s:-
“I. For a direction upon the
respondent authority to set aside the
mains examination result published
on 03/09/2025 at Annexure-P/6-
series i.e. the list of candidates
Patna High Court CWJC No.717 of 2026 dt.02-02-2026
2/5
whose answer booklet cancel due to
identification marks found in their
answer booklet of the written test
held on 18/5/2025 for the post of
upper division clerk (Grade-III) and
further re-evaluate the copies of
mains of these petitioners whose
answer booklet has been cancelled
due to sort of identification mark
found in their answer booklet in view
of the contravention of the
instruction No-5, as mentioned in the
answer booklet, which is completely
a mechanical approach for the
cancellation of their answer booklet.
II. Further after evaluation of the
answer booklet of the petitioners
direct the authority concern to
prepare a fresh merit list of mains
examination and call them for
interview in accordance with law.
III. Further also direct the
respondent authority as to how the
instruction No-05 is applicable to the
candidates for the cancellation of
their answer booklet where in the
instruction column No-5 when itself
has not mentioned in detail and it
shows some ambiguity simply name
or any mark of identification and etc.
Patna High Court CWJC No.717 of 2026 dt.02-02-2026
3/5
IV. Further also direct the concern
authority to keep in abeyance the
process of interview which is going
to be commenced from 08/09/2025
till the disposal of the present writ
application as because of the fact
when the 15084 candidates answer
booklet has been cancelled in the
garb of instruction-05.
V. To pass such order/orders,
direction/directions command/
commands, writ/writs which deem fit
and proper in the fact and
circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has not violated any of the terms & conditions as
mentioned in the notice dated 03.09.2025, in which, it has been
intimated that the answer book of the petitioner has been
cancelled. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the alleged wrong is basically no wrong in
contravention of instruction no.5 of the booklet, and
cancellation of the candidature of this petitioner is completely
excessive and arbitrary. Counsel submits that such mistake has
been done by 15084 candidates. He submits that it has not been
indicated that how and in what manner, instruction no.5 has
Patna High Court CWJC No.717 of 2026 dt.02-02-2026
4/5
been violated. Such decision is ambiguous. He further submits
that the respondent authorities may be directed to place the copy
of the successful candidates who appeared in the mains
examination, as to how and in which manner the said rule has
been violated. It has also been requested that the direction for
re-evaluation of answer sheet of the booklet in true spirit may be
made. Counsel has taken the plea that the petitioner earlier
moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15568 of 2025
(Akanksha Kumari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), and
vide order dated 23.09.2025, this Court has pleased to permit the
petitioner to withdraw the same with liberty to file individual
writ petitions for redressal of their grievances. The Respondent
no.3 was also directed to file a para-wise counter affidavit.
Counsel submits that in such circumstances, a direction may be
given to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 to file a counter affidavit.
4. After hearing the parties, it transpires to this
Court that the decision taken by respondent no.3 is a decision
simpliciter. It is not a stigmatic decision. It also transpires that
the question which has been annexed indicates that there is
something written on the question paper and the decision taken
by respondent no.3 is against bulk of candidates who have been
alleged to violate instruction no.5.
Patna High Court CWJC No.717 of 2026 dt.02-02-2026
5/5
5. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that it is
a decision simpliciter and not a decision stigmatic. The request
of re-evaluation is not permissible under law, particularly, on the
grounds mentioned here. In this view of the matter, this Court is
not inclined to interfere in this matter. Hence, this writ petition
stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04/02/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…