Patna High Court
Santosh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
Re‑evaluation of answer‑books is not permissible under the Bihar Public Service Commission rules, and the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
Santosh Kumar, a candidate of the 32nd Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) to grant him partial marks for specific questions in the written exam and to declare him successful under the EBC category, or alternatively to appoint him as Civil Judge after setting aside the appointment of another candidate. The petition also sought re‑evaluation of his answer‑books. The respondents, including the State of Bihar and BPSC, contended that the matter had been decided in a prior Patna High Court case and that re‑evaluation is not permissible under BPSC rules. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, BPSC (2004) 6 SCC 714 and the earlier Patna High Court judgment (C.W.J.C. No. 5947 of 2025), which held that candidates have no right to re‑evaluate answer‑books absent a specific provision. The Court affirmed that allowing re‑evaluation would cause administrative delays and inconsistencies. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a candidate of a competitive examination is entitled to re‑evaluation of answer‑books under BPSC rules
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing BPSC to grant marks or appoint the petitioner in place of another candidate
Subjects
- re‑evaluation
- mandamus
- Bihar Public Service Commission
- judicial services examination
- EBC reservation
- competitive examination
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9850 of 2025
======================================================
Santosh Kumar S/o- Late Shyam Babu, R/o- Sundari Sadan, Gali No.- 09,
Prem Nagar, Chandmari Road, P.O.- Lohiya Nagar, P.S.- Kankarbagh,
District- Patna, State - Bihar, Pin - 800020.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna, Bihar.
2. Department of General Administration through Principal Secretary,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Chairman, 15,Jawaharlal
Nehru Marg (Bailey Road), Patna- 800001.
4. The Secretary, the Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Jawaharlal Nehru
Marg (Bailey Road), Patna - 800001.
5. The High Court of Judicature at Patna in its administrative side through the
Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna.
6. Anuj Kumar, S/o Sri Ram Sumiran Rai, currently posted as Civil Judge,
Junior Division at Dalsingsarai, District- Samastipur, State- Bihar and also
resident of Anita Kunj, Vishnupur Pakri, Near Radha Krishna Mandir, 70
Feet IOC Road, P.O.- Pakri, P.S. - Beur, Patna, Bihar, Pin - 802301.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Brijnandan, Advocate
For BPSC : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
For Patna High Court : Mr. Piyus Lall, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Verma, Addl. Advocate General (03)
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
4 17-02-2026 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
with following relief(s):
“(i) For issuance of an order (s) / direction
(s) or writ(s) in the nature of Mandamus
directing the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Bihar
Public Service Commission) to grant full or
Patna High Court CWJC No.9850 of 2025(4) dt.17-02-2026
2/7
partial marks to the Petitioner for the
correct answers of Question Nos. 1(b), 1(g),
1(j) and 6(c) of Elementary General Science
Paper and Question Nos. 5(a), 13(j), 14(d),
18(d) and 18(e) of General Knowledge
Paper of Written Examination of 32nd Bihar
Judicial Services Competitive Examination
(Advt. No. 23/2023) and declare the
Petitioner successful in 32nd Bihar Judicial
Services Competitive Examination (Advt. No.
23/2023) under EBC category in the event
the Petitioner secures more than 482 marks
(Cut-off Marks for EBC category) in the
Final Examination. And/or
(ii) For issuance of further order (s) /
direction (s) or writ(s) in the nature of
Mandamus directing the respondents to
appoint the Petitioner on the post of Civil
Judge (Junior Division) after setting aside
the appointment of Respondent No. 6 Anuj
Kumar who is the last selected candidate
under EBC category on the basis of 32nd
Bihar Judicial Services Competitive
Examination (Advt. No. 23/2023). And/or
(iii) Pass such other order / orders which
may appear fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case.”
2. Learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service
Commission so also the learned counsel for the High Court and
learned counsel for the State submit that similar matter has been
disposed of by Division Bench of this Court on 21.01.2026 in
Patna High Court CWJC No.9850 of 2025(4) dt.17-02-2026
3/7
C.W.J.C. No. 5947 of 2025, in which one of us (Sangam Kumar
Sahoo, CJ) was a party. It would be apt to recapitulate the
relevant paragraphs, which reads as follows:-
“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, 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.9850 of 2025(4) dt.17-02-2026
4/7
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.9850 of 2025(4) dt.17-02-2026
5/7
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.9850 of 2025(4) dt.17-02-2026
6/7
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.9850 of 2025(4) dt.17-02-2026
7/7
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.”
3. After perusing the said order, we are of the view
that the matter is identical and moreover the prayer is made for
re-evaluation of the answer sheets, which is not permissible in
view of the several pronouncements of this Court as well as the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
(Harish Kumar, J)
guddukr/-
U
Checking your session…