Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 289
PATNA HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE , ACJ, HONOURABLE MR. PARTHA SARTHY, J
Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust – Appellant
Versus
Bihar Public Service Commission through Chairman – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.752 of 2025 | Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 369 of 2025 | Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 978 of 2025 | Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1437 of 2025 | Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1723 of 2025 | Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2842 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Abhijit Anand, Advocate, Ms.Sweta Kumari, Advocate, Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate, Mr.Pranav Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Shrishti Singh, Advocate, Mr. Devashish Giri, Advocate, Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, Advocate, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate, Md. Fazle Karim, Advocate, Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate, Mr.Raushan, Advocate, Mr. Sahil Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Arpit Anand, Advocate, Mr. Pushkar Bharadwaj, Advocate, Ms. Shreyashi Raj, Advocate, Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Saket Kumar Jha, Advocate, Mr. Pramod Kumar Yadav, Advocate, Ms.Roona, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Pratiyush Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate, Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate, Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Sr. CGC, Mrs. Parul Prasad, CGC, Mr. Aditya Anand, Advocate, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate, Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Arya Achint, Advocate, Mrs. Karishma Aware, Advocate, Mr. P.K.Shahi, Advocate General, Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Amritesh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. V.N.P.Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate
The court reaffirmed that only systemic issues justifying cancellation of recruitment examinations warrant redressal, insisting that isolated incidents must be managed without impacting the broader process.
Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Articles 14 and 16 - Writ petitions challenging the Bihar Public Service Commission's conduct of the integrated 70th Combined Preliminary Competitive Examination on grounds including systemic failure, logistical mismanagement, and paper leaks. (Paras 1-2)
(B) The court found insufficient evidence of widespread malpractice affecting the examination's integrity, concluding that only isolated incidents occurred. (Para 104)
(C) The court emphasized the need for the BPSC to improve examination management practices and uphold transparency. (Para 104)
Facts of the case:
Multiple petitions submitted by candidates alleging irregularities during the Bihar Public Service Commission examination, demanding cancellation and a re-examination, citing malpractices including question paper leaks and administrative failures. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court:
The examination process upheld at different centres with claims of a learning curve acknowledged, but no systemic flaws found justifying complete cancellation. (Par 104)
Issues: Whether the alleged mismanagement and malpractices warranted the cancellation of the examination or a re-examination for all candidates. (Paras 4, 104)
Ratio Decidendi: Examination integrity compromised only at BPP Centre, not systemically; hence, re-examination deemed only necessary for particular centre. Comprehensive measures for future integrity recommended. (Paras 53, 104)
Result: Writ petitions dismissed; BPSC directed to proceed with the mains examination following suggested improvements for transparency and fairness.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to examination conduct and fairness (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments of petitioners on examination irregularities (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's perspective on procedural fairness in examinations (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. legal analysis of examination malpractice and responses (Para 19 , 23 , 27) |
| 5. retention of examination integrity amidst alleged malpractice (Para 30 , 44 , 60) |
| 6. final dismissal of petitions with directions for improved protocols (Para 104 , 106 , 107) |
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 28-03-2025
The common prayer in all the writ petitions, including the PIL, is cancellation of integrated 70th Combined (Preliminary) Competitive Examination, conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (for short ‘the Commission’), held on 13.12.2024 and 04.01.2025 and for holding a re-examination on the grounds of (i) systemic failure of the Commission in conducting a free and fair examination; (ii) logistical and administrative mismanagement at examination centres; (iii) impermissibility of holding two Preliminary Examinations; (iv) prevaricating stand of the Commission with respect to normalization; (v) wrong key-answers; (vi) unfair answer evaluation process; (vii) malpractices at the examination centres; (viii) strong chances of paper leak; and (ix) completely opaque methodology for coming out with a combined merit-list, without taking into account the equal standard of rigour for the students, thus offending Articles14 and 16 of the Constitution of India .
2. It has been argued by all the petitioners that the above-noted grounds have led to the process of examination and the result being shrouded/mired in controversy. It is the assertion of the petitioners that for maintaining the purity of the examination process as also for restoring faith in the system, the only way now is to hold a re-examination in a fair manner. Not doing so, it has been urged, would erode the Constitutional values, which undergird Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India , mandating that selection process conducted by public authorities must be fair, transparent and accountable. Any irregularity in the process gives rise to doubts whether the process has resulted in denial of equal access to all persons and in that case, the entire process gets tainted, requiring cancellation of examination/result and holding of fresh examination.
3. The countervailing arguments on behalf of the Commission and the State are that the process was fair and all care was taken to conduct the examination in a proper manner with very limited complaints regarding mismanagement at Bapu Pariksha Parisar (for short ‘BPP’), the centre with maximum examinees, and few of the key- answers being wrong. But those issues were resolved by referring the wrong key-answers to the Committee of Experts who have given their reasons for selecting the correct answer; and the Commission in its wisdom and experience chose to conduct a re-examination for the candidates of BPP centre only and not for other 912 centres in the entire State of Bihar. The result of successful candidates in the Preliminary Examination has been published in which approximately 21000 students have passed the examination. Their careers could not be lightly dealt with. It was reiterated that there is a need to preserve public confidence in the sanctity of the selection process, but at the same time, there is a requirement of observing fairness towards candidates who invest time and resources in attempting to clear through a selection process and both these considerations have a Constitutional foundation, going beyond service and administrative law principles.
4. Animadverting to the unfairness in the holding of examination, the petitioner in PIL, whose locus has seriously been challenged, has pointed out that (a) the Commission had issued notification on 23.09.2024, inviting on-line applications but without giving any advertisement number; (b) According to the press
