IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17536 of 2013 ======================================================

Som Ranjan Kumar Son of Raj Narayan Singh Resident of Tilak Nagar, Modipur, Muzaffarpur, P.S. Kazi Mohammadpur, District- Muzaffarpur. At Present Posted As Accounts Assistant, Tirhut, Area Board, Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Secretary Department of Energy Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

3. The Bihar State Power Holding Co. Ltd. Through Its Chairman-Cum-

Managing Director, Patna

4. The Secretary, Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. Patna

5. The Deputy General Manager H.R. Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : M/s Jagdish Prasad Singh Ashish Kumar, Rajeev Ranjan Apurva Mishra, Advocates For the State : Mr. Manikant Mishra Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, GP 26 For Power Company : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Sr. Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 18-02-2026

1. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following relief: “ I. Directing the Respondents to re-evaluate the answer sheet of 2nd and Vth Paper of Petitioner Roll No. 28 of Lekha Pravin Pariksha (LPP)II 2011 as has been done in case of Dilip Kumar Singh (Annexure-2) and Sujit Kumar (Annexure-3).

II. directing the Respondents to

2^nd and 5^th revaluate the answer Sheet 2^nd and 5^th Paper of Petitioner and declare him pass in LPPII examination

2011.

III. Any other appropriate Writ or direction be issued which may be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The case of the petitioner as culled out from the Writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Accounts Clerk in the year 2000 and was promoted to the post of Accounts Assistant in 2007. He passed Lekh Pravin Pariksha (hereinafter referred to as “LPP”) Part-I examination in 2010 and thereafter appeared in the LPP Part-II Departmental Examination, 2011. However, he was declared unsuccessful. It is the case of the petitioner that although he answered the questions correctly, especially in Paper-V which was mathematical in nature, he was awarded only

30 marks and failed by a margin of 11 marks.

3. The petitioner submits that similarly situated candidates, namely Sri Dilip Kumar and Sri Sujit Kumar, were initially declared unsuccessful but were subsequently declared passed after re- evaluation of their answer sheets. According to the petitioner, in the case of Sri Dilip Kumar Singh, 0 marks were earlier awarded for a question which was later found correct and 10 marks were granted upon re-evaluation. On that basis, the said candidate was declared successful.

4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the same benefit was not extended to him, though he had also applied for re-evaluation. He submits that such denial amounts to discrimination and violation of Article

14 of the Constitution of India.

5. It is further submitted that in later departmental examinations (2017–18), re- evaluation was permitted in large numbers of cases. Therefore, the respondents cannot take the stand that re-evaluation is impermissible.

6. The Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that once the respondents adopted a particular yardstick in the case of other candidates by forwarding answer sheets for re- evaluation, the same standard ought to have been applied in the case of the petitioner.

7. A Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit were filed on behalf of the respondent Bihar State Power Holding Corporation Limited. The Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent–Power Holding Corporation Limited submits that as per Standing Order No. 1042 dated 12.09.1983 of erstwhile BSEB, there is only a provision for re-totalling of the evaluated marks given by the ealuator and not for re-evaluation. It i