Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 291
PATNA HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE , ACJ, HONOURABLE MR. PARTHA SARTHY, J
Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust, Through its Trustee Namely Amit Kumar – 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. Kushal, 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, Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, 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, A.G., Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Amritesh Kumar, Advocate
Examination processes must ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability; systemic failures necessitate either targeted re-examination or comprehensive reforms to maintain integrity.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 - Standards in examination - The petitioners sought cancellation of the 70th Combined (Preliminary) Competitive Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission, citing systemic failures and malpractices that compromised the examination's integrity - The court emphasized the importance of fair and transparent processes in competitive examinations, ordering measures to ensure the integrity of future examinations. (Paras 1-104)
(B) Examination integrity - Systemic failures - The court recognized that while disturbances occurred at certain centers, these did not warrant the cancellation of the entire examination - A significant presence of irregularities was noted, though limited to specific centers, leading to a decision to conduct re-examinations for those affected only. (Paras 103-104)
(C) Malpractice evidence - The court found that although there were claims of malpractices, the evidence presented did not substantiate claims of systemic cheating or question paper leaks affecting all candidates. (Paras 104-106)
(D) Public Interest Litigation - Locus standi objections were addressed, allowing the hearing on the grounds of maintaining examination integrity for aspirants. (Paras 11-16) (E) Recommendations for reform - The court recommended the establishment of a committee to oversee examination processes, address vulnerabilities, and evaluate security measures, emphasizing the need for comprehensive adherence to the established SOP. (Paras 99-103)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common prayer for examination cancellation (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. allegations of malpractice and examination irregularities (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. ruckus at bpp centre and paper leak allegations (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. responses and objections from the commission (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. legal standards on public interest litigation and eligibility (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. judicial discretion in examining public interest litigation (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. commission's stance on examination process validity (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. management of examination centers and candidate conduct (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 9. implementation of sop and issues observed (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 10. outcome of allegations and proof evaluated (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 11. systemic irregularities and legal implications (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 12. judicial authority on examination results and validity (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 13. precedents on commencement and cancellation of exams (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 14. standards for challenge to examination processes (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 15. implications of cbi inquiry and electoral integrity (Para 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 16. issues of normalization in examination (Para 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 17. judicial standards for examination fairness (Para 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 18. appeal process and corrections in examination scoring (Para 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 19. sustaining examination integrity against false claims (Para 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 20. conclusion on challenges against examination validity (Para 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 21. responsibility of the commission in the examination process (Para 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 22. legislation and cbi inquiry power limitations (Para 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 23. need for substantial proof for investigation (Para 66 , 67 , 68) |
| 24. effect of isolated incidents on overall examination (Para 69 , 70 , 71) |
| 25. impact of coaching institutes on examination integrity (Para 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 26. commercialization of education and its consequences (Para 75 , 76 , 77) |
| 27. perception of student agitation pre-examination (Para 78 , 79 , 80) |
| 28. sources of misinformation affecting student behavior (Para 81 , 82 , 83) |
| 29. responsibility for student agitation and outcomes (Para 84 , 85 , 86) |
| 30. normalization fairness principle in recruitment processes (Para 87 , 88 , 89) |
| 31. management of student expectations and agitation (Para 90 , 91 , 92) |
| 32. legitimacy of examination regulatory procedures (Para 93 , 94 , 95) |
| 33. recommendation for examination systemic reforms (Para 96 , 97 , 98) |
| 34. urgent need for enhancing security protocols in examinations (Para 99 , 100 , 101) |
| 35. comprehensive conclusion and action points for bpsc (Para 102 , 103) |
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
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 d
