Pratima Kumari v. The State of Jharkhand

Mahesh Kumar Yadav, Aged about 37 years, Son of Tokan Mahto, Resident of Village Paplo, P.O. & P.S.-Markachcho, District- Koderma, Jharkhand-825318.

Gopal Chandra Singh, Aged about 39 years, Son of Late Pabrit Prasad Singh, Resident of Village Viyarsol, P.O.- Siktiya, P.S.- Chitra, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand-815357.

Yogendra Kumar Pandit, Aged about 45 years, Son of Krishna Prasad Pandit, Resident of Village- Lakshmi, P.O.-Makhni, P.S. Godda (Muffasil), District- Godda, Jharkhand-814133.

Dwarika Prasad, Aged about 45 years, Son of Jaleshwar Mahto, Resident of Village- Soso, P.O. & P.S.- Rajrappa, District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand-825101.

Nitesh Kumar Gupta, Aged about 42 years, Son of Bhagwan Pd. Gupta, Resident of Village & Post-Biswashkhani, P.O. & P.S. Hanwara, District- Godda, Jharkhand-814155.

Ranjeeta Mahato, Aged about 45 years, Daughter of Jagabandhu Mahato, Resident of Village Mirgi Tola, Bhadrudih, P.O. Tablapu, P.S. Seraikela, District-Seraikela- Kharsawan, Jharkhand-823219.

Shaista Nasim, Aged about 37 years, Daughter of Moulana Nasim, Resident of Village- Asnabad, P.O.- Karma, P.S.- Jhumari Telaiya, District- Koderma, Jharkhand-825409.

Pushpawanta, Aged about 40 years, Son of Kinnaresh Tripathi, Resident at Ward No. 09, House No. 76, Court Road, P.O. B Deoghar, P.S.- Deoghar (Town), District-Deoghar, Jharkhand-814112.

Rohit Ranjan, Aged about 37 years, Son of Ramesh Kumar Tewary, Resident of Prawati Bhawan, 52 Bigha More, 1 Karnibagh, P.O. & P.S. Kunda, District- Deoghar, Jharkhand- 814112. … … Petitioner(s) Versus

The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. - Dhurwa, P.S.Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi. The Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt, of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. - Dhurwa, P.S. - Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi. The Director, Directorate of Secondary Education, Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. - Dhurwa, P.S. -Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its secretary, having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District - Ranchi. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. -Namkum, District - Ranchi. … … Respondent(s)

------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate ------ 03/ 16th March, 2026

Heard the parties. The petitioners, in this writ petition, has prayed for following reliefs:-

A. For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or for any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondent authorities for considering the appointment of the petitioners as they have scored high marks in qualifying exam than who have selected by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission and already serving as teacher pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2023 (PGTTCE-2023); AND B. For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or for any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondent authorities 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; AND 2 C. For issuance of appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent-JSSC to bring on record secured storage for answer to question by the petitioners, which is stored in the form of DVD by the examination conducting outsource agency; in pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2023 (PGTTCE-2023); AND D. For issuance of appropriate writ(s) order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondent authorities to keep the seats vacant in the name instant writ of petitioners during pendency of the applicaiton

The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) issued an advertisement being Advertisement no. 02 of 2023 to recruit Post Graduate Trained Teachers (PGTTCE-2023). The examination was conducted in Computer Based Test (CBT) mode through empanelled agencies between 18 August 2023 and 10 September 2023. 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 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.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the errors occurred due to technical faults of JSSC or its empanelled agency, not due to any mistake of the petitioners. JSSC failed to properly consider the petitioners objections and correct the mistakes. He further submits that for the same issue, several writ applications were filed before this Hon’ble Court, wherein prayer was made for direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the grievance as there is irregularities with regard to the final result published by respondent Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission. 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 jumbled option of their responses in the final answer key 3 and not taking the correct measures for redressing the same, is arbitrary and highhandedness.

5. 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 empanelled 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. He further submitted that earlier writ petitions being WP(S) No.4649 of 2024 & WP(S) No.1066 of 2026 was filed for the same reliefs was dismissed by this Court.

After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the issue which the petitioner is trying to raise in this writ petition is already decided by this Court in several writ petition being WP(S) No.4649 of 2024 & WP(S) No.1066 of 2026. Further, 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. 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 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 4 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.”

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.