JUDGMENT :

1. After having been declared successful in the preliminary test, the petitioner had appeared in the main (written ‘60th to 62nd Combined Competitive Civil Services Examination’) held by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.P.S.C.’) as a candidate belonging to BC category. He was declared successful for the interview but his name could not figure in the final merit list for recommendation by the B.P.S.C. in its result published on 01.02.2019 since the petitioner was found to have scored 582 marks as against the cutoff marks of 584 fixed for the BC category. The final merit list was published by the B.P.S.C. on the basis of marks obtained by respective candidates in the main (written examination) and the interview taken together.

2. The candidates declared finally selected on the basis of said examination have already been appointed. The petitioner had chosen Public Administration as his optional subject. He filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for the supply of answer sheets of both the papers of general studies as well as the optional subject namely Public Administration which were supplied to him on 05.07.2019.

3. It is the petitioner's grievance that in the Public Administration subject, in respect of the first part of question no. 11, he was initially awarded 26 marks by the examiner, which was penned through and reduced to 24. For the second part of the said question, he was awarded six marks and thus firstly 26+6 was written which was changed to 24+6 without any initials put by the examiner. It is the petitioner's case that had the alternation not been done and the petitioner's marks originally awarded against the first part of question no. 11 was not reduced to 24, the petitioner would have been declared successful, as he would have achieved the cutoff. Similarly, in respect of question no. 7, for the second part, he was originally awarded 7 marks which too was penned through and brought down to 6 marks. He was thus awarded 22+6=28 marks for question no. 7 instead of 22+7=29. There are averments in the writ application of not giving full marks for some of his answers which were accurate and correct, in general studies paper 1. With the aforesaid fact asserted in the writ application, the petitioner has filed the present writ application seeking a direction to the B.P.S.C. to declare him successful after re-evaluating and recalculation his answer sheets and to recommend to the State Government his name for appointment.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the B.P.S.C. wherein it has been asserted that the evaluation of the petitioner's answer sheet was done with due care by qualified and experienced examiners and after evaluation, the answer books have been properly scrutinized and tabulation of marks had also been done cautiously. In relation to marking qua question no. 11, it has been stated that it is true that the examiner had awarded 26 marks for question no. 11 but subsequently he made the correction and awarded 24 marks instead after putting his initials over the said correction at the relevant page of the answer sheet. Similarly, in respect of the second part of question no. 7, the examiner had initially awarded 7 marks which he had corrected and awarded 6 marks instead after putting his initials. It has also been pointed out to demonstrate bonafide of the B.P.S.C. that in respect of question no. 2, the petitioner was awarded 6 and 26 marks but the examiner had erroneously calculated 30 instead of 32. The head examiner, during the verification noticed the said discrepancy and rectified the error and thus the petitioner was shown to have scored 32 instead of 30 for question no. 2. In respect of the marks awarded for various answers in general studies paper 1, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the same has been done by the examiner according to the petitioner's performance.

5. I have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned co