2025:JHHC:13592 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2754 of 2019 --------- Jitendra Kumar, aged about 30 years, S/o Lal Babu Shah, R/o-Sharma Market, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi (Jharkhand) . ....Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Deptt. of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Official Languages, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagannathpur, Distt.-Ranchi 3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) through its Secretary having its office at Kali Nagar, Chaibagan, Namkom, P.O. & P.S.-Namkom, Distt.-Ranchi ....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ved Prakash, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Divyam, AC to SC-IV Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate --------- 09/Dated:- 06.05.2025 1. Heard the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent-authorities to add 08 (Eight) marks in the total marks obtained by him for the correct answers of two questions, i.e., the question nos.23 & 67 of the booklet code ‘C’ of the Intermediate Standard Combined Competitive Examination 2017 (ISSCE-2017) which has been wrongly denied to him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the model answers which was given in the model answer paper was incorrect and the answers given by the petitioner were correct. He further 2025:JHHC:13592 2 submits that the examination was with respect to Hindi subject and as per the petitioner he has correctly marked the option but since the model answer paper itself was not correct, as such he has been debarred appointment. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC submits that after examination the model answer papers are published prepared by the experts and thereafter objections are invited in normal course and if any error is found the said model answer are revised by the expert of the subject concerned and subsequently marks are to be given. In the instant case the claim of the petitioner is that question nos.23 and 67 of the booklet code ‘C’ was incorrect in the model answer paper is nonest in the eyes of law because the model answer papers are made by the experts of the subject concerned. In the similar facts and circumstances and on the issue involved in the instant case reference may be made to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3931 of 2019 with analogues cases; wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held at para 9 as under:- “9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon going through record, we find that these matters are fully covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh’s case (supra), and we find that this Court has little scope to enter into the question raised by the writ applicants, particularly in view of the fact the Expert Committee has come out with key answers after considering the objections. Simply because of the fact that the examination relates to the subject of law, that does not mean that this Court should sit over the expert opinion of the experts in the subject. Since the Expert Committee has finalized the key answers, there is a presumption attached to it about its correctness, and in that view of the matter, it shall not be proper for the Court to sit over 2025:JHHC:13592 3 the opinion of the Expert Committee. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these writ applications and the same are accordingly, dismissed. The pending Interlocutory Applications also stand dismissed.” 5. Having regard to the settled propositions that this Court is not expert in this subject and the model answers which has been prepared by the expert committee is common for all. Further even if answers are incorrect then also no prejudice is committed to the petitioner because it is common for all the students. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, the instant writ application does not require any interference. Accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Rohit/-