(2026:JHHC:2284) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S). No. 78 of 2024 Tanushree Dash, aged about 35 years, d/o Tushar Kanti Dash, r/o village - Pukuria, P.O. & P.S. - Dudhkuri, District - Paschim Medinipur (West Bengal). … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, School Education & Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, PO - Dhurwa, PS - Jagannathpur, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Director Secondary Education, having its office at Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, PO - Dhurwa, PS - Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Secretary Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having office at Kalinagar, Chai Bagan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. - Namkum, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Examination Controller Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Ranchi, having office at Kalinagar, Chai Bagan, Namkum, P.O. & P.S. - Namkum, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Respondents --- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. --- For the Petitioner : Mr. K. S. Nanda, Advocate : Ms. Shreya Tiwari, Advocate : Ms. Rashika Bharadwaj, Advocate For the Respondents : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Sharon Toppo, Advocate : Mr. Aditya Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I --- 07/29th January 2026 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. Admittedly the petitioner has obtained 262 marks in the selection process whereas the last selected candidate as per the order dated 15.04.2024 in this case has obtained 264 marks. (2026:JHHC:2284) 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the answer to question no. 127 of the Booklet - D, according to him, is Option - "C" but the respondents have wrongly mentioned it in the model answer-sheet as Option - "A". He further submits that if the Option - C is taken to be correct, then the petitioner should be awarded two more marks, which is equal to the last selected candidate and she can come within the zone of consideration. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 has carved out the principles relating to re-evaluation. It is necessary to quote Paragraph No. 30 of the said judgment which is quoted hereinbelow:- 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. The petitioner in-fact in this writ application is praying to re- evaluate the answer-sheet and correct the answer which has already been assessed and fixed by the Expert Committee. As per Expert Committee, the answer to the Question No. 127 of Booklet - D, is "A". The petitioner is trying to convince this Court that the correct answer would be answer "C". The petitioner is trying to impress (2026:JHHC:2284) 3 upon this Court to pass an order which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, no relief can be granted to her. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Aditi Dated: - 29th January 2026 Uploaded on:- 04.02.2026