2026:JHHC:6271 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 184 of 2025 ----- 1.Raju Mahto, S/o Sachin Mahato, R/o 1, Chakulia Road, Village- Nokata, Chandrapur, P.O. & P.S. Chandrapur, District- East Singhbhum 2.Hare Krishna Mahato, S/o Arjun Prasad Mahato, R/o Kendua, Banshikol, P.O. & P.S. Banshikol, District East Singhbhum 3.Sudesh Besra, S/o Jiten Besra, R/o Ghoshdih, P.O. & P.S. Gabarghusi, District East Singhbhum 4.Shishir Tudu, S/o Chuna Ram Manjhi, R/o House No.6, Village- Kundru Kocha, Gobarghusi, P.O. & P.S. Gobarghusi, District East Singhbhum 5.Chandray Tudu, S/o Chuna Ram Manjhi, R/o Village Kundru Kocha, Gobarghusi, P.O. & P.S. Gobarghusi, District East Singhbhum 6.Lakhan Hembrom, S/o Rebati Hembram, R/o Burudih, Deghi, P.O. & P.S. Dighi, District East Singhbhum 7.Sonaram Besra, S/o Fatik Besra, R/o Garigram, Gobarghusi, P.O. & P.s. Gobarghhusi, District East Singhbhum .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, District East Singhbhum 2.Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Senior Officer, Chowkidar Appointment Cell, East Singhbhum, P.O. & P.s. Sakchi, District East Singhbhum 3.Additional District Magistrate (Law & Order), East Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, District East Singhbhum … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocate For the Resp-State : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to SC-III …...... 03/ 10.03.2026: I.A. No. 4449 of 2025 & I.A. No. 818 of 2025 Both these interlocutory applications have become infructuous as the appointment letter has already been distributed. 2. Accordingly, both I.As. stand dismissed as infructuous. W.P. (S) No. 184 of 2025 3. On the request of the petitioners, this case is taken up for final disposal itself. 4. The petitioner has prayed for following relief:- (a) For issuance of a writ, order or direction, for quashing the merit list dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure-8), whereby and whereunder pursuant to Chowkidar Direct Recruitment Advertisement No. 01/2024 (Annexure-1), the successful candidates have been declared and called for physical measurement and test, without adopting fair and reasonable mechanism of written test conducted on 22.12.2024. And /Or (b) For a direction upon the respondents to re-assess the whole examination process including defective question pattern and their answer option which was conducted on 22.12.2024 pursuant to Chowkidar Direct Recruitment Advertisement No.01/2024 (Annexure-1) (c) For a direction upon the respondents for re-examination of written test conducted on 22.12.2024 pursuant to Chowkidar Direct Recruitment Advertisement No.01/2024. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners come within the zone of consideration for the post of Chowkidar pursuant to the Advertisement No. 01 of 2024 as he has given answer to the questions correctly, which has been wrongly calculated. He further submits that the question numbers which were mentioned in paragraph Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 to this writ petition has been correctly answered by the petitioners, but has been wrongly evaluated. 6. It is the grievance of the petitioners that if these questions were rightly evaluated then the petitioners would have come within the zone of consideration could have been appointed. 7. The grievance of the petitioners is that some of the questions have not been properly evaluated by the Examiner. His grievances that the answer which he had chosen were correct, but the respondents have wrongly rejected the same. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 at paragraph 30 has held that the Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics. It is necessary to quote para 30 of the said judgment, which is hereunder:- “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 reevaluation 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.” 9. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a very recent judgment in the case of Shubham Pal & Ors. Vs Staff Selection Commission & Anr. (SLP(C) No(s). 21999/2024) relying upon the judgment of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) has held that the Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption and in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. 10. Further, from the counter affidavit, it is also clear that objection which were raised after publication of the provisional answer key where considered and thereafter final results were published. 11. Considering the above facts and law, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 10th March, 2026 R.S./ Uploaded on 13/03/2026