2026:JHHC:4655 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.1008 of 2026 ----- Birendra Gope, aged about 39 years, Son of Jagannath Gope, resident of 56 Poniyadih, P.O. Asura Chaibasa, P.S. Jhikpani, District- West Singbhum, Jharkhand … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, having its office at 1st floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi. 2. The Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Director, Department of School Education and Literacy. having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 4. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi. 5. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. Government of Jharkhand having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. and P.S. - Namkum, District - Ranchi. 6. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. and P.S. - Namkum, District - Ranchi 7. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Government of Jharkhand having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. and P.S. - Namkum, District Ranchi. … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Komal Tiwary, AC to AG For the JSSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate …...... 02 /16.02.2026: Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents. 2026:JHHC:4655 2 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs: “i. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent-Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission to treat option "(B) थोड़ा" as a correct answer to Question No. 115 of the Language Paper in the Jharkhand Matric Level Combined Competitive Examination-2023, conducted pursuant to Advertisement No. 12/2023 for recruitment to the post of Keetpalak and equivalent posts, in view of the fact that the said option represents the accepted lexical meaning of the word "नगण्य" and the question, as framed, admits of more than one reasonable and correct answer, or in the alternative, to treat both options "(B) थोड़ा" and "(D) अपय़ाा्቎" as correct answers to the said question, the ambiguity having arisen from the framing of the question itself, and to award marks to the Petitioner accordingly. ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to recalculate the marks obtained by the Petitioner in the Jharkhand Matric Level Combined Competitive Examination-2023 after granting marks for Question No. 115, and upon such recalculation, to declare the Petitioner as having qualified the Language Paper. iii. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioner for inclusion in the list of eligible candidates, and thereafter to consider the candidature of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of Keetpalak and equivalent posts pursuant to Advertisement No. 12/2023, strictly in accordance with law. iv. During the pendency of the present writ petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to reserve one seat for the Petitioner for the post of Keetpalak pursuant to Advertisement No. 12/2023, so as to protect the Petitioner from irreparable loss and to ensure that the writ petition is not rendered infructuous. AND/OR For any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including costs of the present writ petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the correct answer to the question no. 115 would be both option-B and option-D and not only option-D as claimed by the respondents and since the petitioner has chosen option-B he should also be granted marks for question no. 115. 4. The entire dispute is which would be the correct answer of question no. 115 in language paper Hindi. As per the petitioner the 2026:JHHC:4655 3 answer to question no. 115 can be both the option i.e. option-B and option-D but the respondents are contending that the option-D is correct answer and not option-B. 5. The petitioner thus wants mandamus from this Court for a direction that option-B is also to be considered to be correct answer. 6. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Diary No. 50269 of 2025 titled “Jharkhand Public Service Commission and Another vs. the State of Jharkhand and Another” and analogous cases. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 7 has held that the High Court cannot assume the role of super-examiner /subject expert and such exercise should ordinarily be left to the domain experts. 7. The legal position has also been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there cannot be revaluation of an answersheet unless the Rules and Regulations or Policy especially provides for. 8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment, this Court cannot issue a mandamus to the effect that whether option-B to question no. 115 is correct or not. 9. If the petitioner so wishes may approach the JSSC for redressal of his grievance. 10. With the aforesaid liberty, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 16.02.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 24.02.2026