Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N.PATHAK, J.
Jaya Kumari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 2574 of 2024, W.P.(S) No. 2654 of 2024, W.P.(S). No. 2870 of 2024, W.P.(S) No. 2876 of 2024, W.P.(S) No. 3013 of 2024, W.P.(S) No. 3247 of 2024, W.P.(S) No. 3265 of 2024, W.P.(S) No. 2899 of 2024, W.P.(S) No. 3597 of 2024
Decided on : 20-06-2024
[EXAMINATION] - [Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination] - [Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021; Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - [The court discussed the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021, emphasizing the absence of provisions for re-evaluation of answer sheets. It highlighted the importance of expert opinions in academic matters and the limitations of judicial review in such contexts. The court concluded that the JPSC acted within its authority and that the petitioners' requests for re-evaluation were not supported by the rules, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the Jharkhand Public Service Commission's (JPSC) evaluation of their answers in the General Studies Papers of the Combined Civil Services Examination, claiming that incorrect answers were marked as correct. They sought the formation of an Expert Committee to re-evaluate the answers after the publication of the results, arguing that their objections were not adequately considered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the JPSC had already constituted an Expert Committee to review the answer keys and had published revised answers based on expert recommendations. The court held that the petitioners failed to raise objections before the results were published and that there was no provision in the rules for re-evaluation of answer sheets, thus dismissing the petitions.
Issues: ['Whether petitioners can challenge the evaluation after being declared unsuccessful.', 'Whether the court can direct the formation of an Expert Body when one has already been constituted.', 'Whether incorrect answers affected all candidates and if re-evaluation would alter cut-off marks.', 'Whether the High Court can assume the role of an Expert Body in determining correct answers.']
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that judicial review in academic matters is limited, emphasizing the need to respect expert opinions. It cited previous judgments that discourage interference in evaluation processes unless there are clear provisions allowing for re-evaluation. The court concluded that the petitioners' failure to act before the results were published undermined their claims.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming that the JPSC followed proper procedures and that the petitioners had no grounds for re-evaluation or for challenging the results post-publication.
JUDGMENT :
S.N.PATHAK, J.
Heard the parties.
2. Since, the issues involved in all these writ petitions are similar and identical and as such they have been tagged together and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Petitioners have approached this Court with a common prayer for direction upon the respondent-JPSC to constitute a Committee of Expert Body in order to evaluate and determine the answer of some of the questions, as mentioned in the individual writ petitions, of the General Studies Papers-I & II which according to the petitioners are wrong inasmuch as they have verified the correct answers from the Text Book of NCERT and other documents of the Government.
Petitioners have further prayed that after re-evaluation of questions by the Expert Body, the petitioners’ cases may be considered for grant of the marks for the questions answers of which has been incorrectly ascertained by the respondent-JPSC and though the petitioners have marked the correct answer, they have not been allotted the marks of the said questions, as mentioned in the individual writ petitions.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the State of Jharkhand has framed Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021 and the same was notified by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand on 08.01.2021 and published and notified in the State Gazette on 22.01.2021. Thereafter, the said rule was amended in the year 2021 as well as in the year 2023.
It is the further case of the petitioners that the various Departments of State Government have sent requisitions before the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (for short “JPSC”) for starting the selection process for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Jail Superintendent, etc. and altogether 342 posts have been advertised vide Advt. No. 1/2024 inviting applications from the suitable and eligible candidates. Since the petitioners were fulfilling the requisite qualifications, they submitted their applications for consideration of their candidature for appointment against the said post. Thereafter, the respondent-JPSC uploaded e-Admit Card of the candidates, whose applications were found in order, fixing the date of preliminary test on 17.03.2024. After conducting the said test, the respondent-JPSC uploaded the Model Answer Keys on the website of JPSC on 23.03.2024 for General Studies Paper-I & II and invited objections/suggestion from the candidates who are aggrieved by the answer keys from 24.03.2024 to 30.03.2024.
Thereafter, several candidates including the present petitioners have submitted their objections/suggestions to the Model Answer Key before the respondent-JPSC. After receipt of such objections/suggestions, a Committee of Expert for verification/correction of the Model Answers in light of Objections/Suggestion of the candidates was constituted. Subsequently, on the basis of opinion of the Expert Committee, the respondent-JPSC published revised Model Answers on 13.04.2024 for information of the candidates. After publication of the revised Model Answer on 13.04.2024, since certain objections were again raised by some of the candidates on final answer key, the same was again placed before the Expert Committee for their opinion and on the basis of opinion of the said Committee, the JPSC published corrected and revised answer key for G.S. Paper-I & II on 16.04.2024 and the OMR sheets of the candidates were evaluated and thereafter, respondent-JPSC published the result of Preliminary Test on 22.04.2024. However, the names of present petitioners were not found in the said list.
5. It is the specific case of petitioners that though respondent-JPSC published revised Model Answers of the questions twice but still some errors remained there and the same requires corrections/modifications by the Expert Body. Soon after publication of the results, the petitioners approached the respondent-JPSC raising their grievances but responden
Judicial review in matters of academic evaluation is limited, and courts should defer to expert opinions unless there are specific provisions allowing for re-evaluation.
Point of Law : Practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in relevant rules for re-evaluation and tha....
Courts should defer to the opinion of subject experts in public examinations and should not interfere with the examination process unless there is a glaring mistake that is totally apparent without a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
