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. guddukr/- (Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ) (Harish Kumar, J) U