2026:JHHC:4761 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1083 of 2026 ------ 1. Pankaj Kumar Saw, Aged about- 38 years, S/O Baijnath Prasad Saw, Residence of At- Mahthadih, Tola- Kothiyarabar, P.O-& P.S-Domchanch, District-Koderma, Jharkhand. 2. Ranjeet Ram, Aged about- 41 years, S/O Hitial Ram, Resident of At- Mandu, P.O- Mandu, P.S-Mandu, District-Hazaribag, Jharkhand. 3. Rajeev Kumar Oraon, aged about 41 Years, S/O- Kripal Oraon, Resident of At Ghaghnas, P.O.- Desiria, P.S.-Bargaon, District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnnathpur, Dist- Ranchi. 3. The Principal Secretary, General Administration and Raj Bhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnnathpur, Dist- Ranchi. 4. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnnathpur, Dist- Ranchi. 5. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnnathpur, Dist- Ranchi. 6. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnnathpur, Dist- Ranchi 7. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi, Having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnnathpur, Dist- Ranchi. … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate Mr. Kazi Asif Iqubal, Advocate Mr. Gyandev Raj, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Komal Tiwary, AC to AG Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate ------ 02/ 18th February, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2026:JHHC:4761 2 2. By filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made by the petitioners to direct the respondents to allot appropriate marks against the question, according to them were answered correctly. In fact, the following is further prayer made by the petitioners :- “i. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondent Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission to allot appropriate marks against the questions, which were answered correctly by the petitioners by opting the correct options in objective type paper (Computer Based Test) pursuant to Advertisement No.02/2023 (PGTTCE-2023) for appointment on the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher in different subjects. ii. For further issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent- Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission to recommend the name of petitioners for appointment on the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher, who have scored more marks than the last selected candidate in the concerned subject after re-allotment of marks. iii. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent-Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission to bring on record stored digital answer-sheets and evaluation of the same related with the petitioners, which is stored in the form of non writable DVD by the examination conducting outsource agency and after completion of examination submitted to the respondent-Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. iv. Further for a direction upon the respondent to keep seats vacant for the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition.” 3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) issued an advertisement being Advertisement no. 02 of 2023 (PGTTCE-2023) to recruit Post Graduate Trained Teachers (Regular Vacancy). The examination was conducted in Computer Based Test (CBT) mode through empaneled agencies between 18 August 2023 and 10 September 2023.The petitioners applied and appeared in the examination. After the exam, JSSC published the provisional answer key on 20 September 2023 and invited objections from candidates. Later, JSSC stated that experts had reviewed the objections and released a final answer key. However, it was found that due to some technical or software error, the options chosen by candidates were shown incorrect/ got jumbled. Because of this 2026:JHHC:4761 3 issue, JSSC revised some answers after expert review. According to the petitioners, due to jumbling of options, the petitioners correct answers were treated as wrong, affecting their merit and selection. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioners that they have selected the correct options, but the respondents have wrongly evaluated the answer sheet. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the errors occurred due to technical faults of JSSC or its empaneled agency, for which the petitioners cannot be made responsible. He also submits that action of the respondent- Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission in not considering the objection raised by the petitioners with respect to change occurred due to jumbling of option of their responses in the final answer key and not taking the correct measures for redressing the grievance, is arbitrary. 6. The learned counsel for respondents submits that recruitment was conducted in a fair, transparent, and uniform manner through Computer Based Test (CBT) mode by duly empaneled and technically competent examination agencies. He further submits that adequate safeguards were in place to ensure accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of the examination process. He also submits that candidates were given sufficient opportunity to raise objections within the stipulated time and all objections received were carefully examined by subject experts. 7. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I am of the view that there is no evidence to show that the petitioners were treated differently from other candidates. The petitioners’ complaint is mainly that their answers in the computer-based test were wrongly evaluated because of a technical or software issue. It is well-settled that Courts should not themselves re-check or reassess answer sheets, as they do not have academic expertise. Hon’ble Supreme court in case of “Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P”. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 in paragraph 30 has 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 2026:JHHC:4761 4 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.” 8. In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, I find that in matter relating to evaluation of answer sheets and determination of correctness of answers, the scope of judicial review is extremely limited. This Court also notes that several candidates participated in the same examination under the same conditions and the petitioners have failed to establish that the alleged technical issue vitiated the entire selection process or that the respondent Commission acted in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner. 9. So far as contention of the petitioners is that they should be appointed as they have obtained more marks less than the last selected candidate, I find that neither the marks of the petitioners have been disclosed by the petitioners nor the marks obtained by the selected candidates has been disclosed by the petitioners. Thus, on this vague petition, the petitioners cannot be granted the relief. If the petitioners ultimately find out that any person obtaining lesser marks than the petitioners have been appointed, it will be open to the petitioners to file an appropriate representation before the respondents. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 18.02.2026 S.K.D/cp2 Uploaded on 25.02.2026