2026:JHHC:1015 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.7728 of 2025 ----- Asgari Khatoon, aged about 45 years, wife of Ahad Faras, resident of Pharkesh, Pabeya, P.O.-Pabeya, P.S.- Bharno, District- Gumla … Petitioner(s). Versus 1)The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi; 2) Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O.- Ranchi GPO, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi; 3) Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O.-Ranchi GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Ranchi; 4) Director, Welfare, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O.- Ranchi GPO, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi; 5) District Social Welfare Officer, Gumla, P.O. & P.S.-Gumla, District- Gumla; 6) Hasan Ara, wife of Ershad Ahmad, resident of Village- Sargaon, P.O. Datiya, P.S.- Bharno, District- Gumla; … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, SC-VI Mr. Piyush Anand, AC to SC-VI Mr. Rituraj, AC to SC-VI …...... 04 /15.01.2026: Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs: “for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order for quashing the Impugned Order dated 20.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2 as contained in Memo No. 159 dated 20.06.2025 (Annexure-2) AND for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ/ order commanding upon the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner on the post of Lady Supervisor within a specified period.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner who was working as Aanganbari Sevika had appeared in the examination which was conducted to fill up the post of Lady Supervisor. Since 2026:JHHC:1015 2 the petitioner did not qualify, she was not considered. The grievance of the petitioner that the OMR sheets of the petitioner were not properly evaluated thus she prayed that OMR sheets should be re-evaluated. It is the claim of the petitioner that in paper-2 the petitioner should have got 86 marks but less marks was allotted to her. 4. There is no rules to re-evaluate the answersheets. In absence of any rule, the answersheets cannot be re-evaluated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P.” reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 crystalized the law relating to re-evaluation. In paragraph-30 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: 30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; 30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; 30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate—it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; 30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. 5. On the insistence of the petitioner, this Court had called for the tabulation chart and OMR sheets also. From the tabulation chart produced before me in sealed cover, I find that the papers were evaluated twice and in both the occasions, in the paper-1 it was found that the petitioner has obtained 70 marks and in paper-2 2026:JHHC:1015 3 the petitioner had obtained 76 marks. There is no discrepancy in evaluating of the OMR sheets. 6. Admittedly none of the person who has obtained lesser marks than the petitioner in the category of the petitioner has been appointed. Thus, the petitioner has got no right to be appointed since the petitioner has not qualified. 7. This writ petition stands dismissed. 8. The OMR sheets and tabulation chart which was produced before this Court in sealed cover is again sealed and handed over to the learned counsel for the respondents. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 15.01.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 16.01.2026