1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). __________________OF 2020

(Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 23202-23204 OF 2015)

BIHAR STAFF SELECTION

COMMISSION & ORS. ....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ARUN KUMAR & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). __________________OF 2020

(Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 29764-29765 OF 2015)

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). __________________OF 2020

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30109 OF 2016)

ORDER

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

1.Special leave granted. The parties were heard, with consent of their counsel.

2.These appeals are directed against a common judgment in LPA No.

1200/2013 (in CWJC No. 3640/2013), LPA No. 1170/2013 (in CWJC No.

3740/2013), LPA No. 1174/2013 (in CWJC No. 4265/2013) and LPA No.

1352/2013 in CWJC No. 3640/2013) of the Patna High Court, dated 24.06.2015.

3.One set of appeals (arising from SLP(C) Nos. 23202-23204/2015) has

been preferred by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereafter “BSSC”) and

2

the other set (referred to as “the aggrieved party appellants”) by several

aggrieved parties, who were appellants before the Division Bench of the High

Court, in four intra-court appeals, which had questioned the judgment and order

of a learned single judge. The single judge set aside the results of the main

examination, with consequential directions to the BSSC to prepare fresh results

of the Graduate Level Combined Examination-2010, in accordance with the

directions of the Court in relation to deletion/modification of questions and

answers as stipulated in the judgment. The aggrieved party appellants were not

party to the writ proceedings, but had been declared selected in terms of the

results first published, and subsequently were shown as not qualified under the

revised results pursuant to the directions of the Court by the learned single

judge. Three appeals to the Division Bench were by candidates who were writ

petitioners and had impugned the judgment of the single judge in not granting

them full relief in respect of all questions that were challenged. These parties

were not selected in the final results declared.

4.The brief facts of the case are that on 18.06.2010, the BSSC issued an

advertisement calling for applications for selection of candidates to 1569

vacancies in Class III posts, in various departments of the Government of Bihar.

Examinations were conducted; on 12.04.2012, results of the preliminary

examination were declared; this became the subject matter of challenge before

the Patna High Court. The High Court, after calling for evaluation of the

questions and the results published by experts, directed fresh declaration of

results. Resultantly, the fresh declaration of results was made on 29.12.2012.

27,289 candidates qualified in the examination. Meanwhile the number of

vacancies increased to 3285 (from the original number of 1569). On 27.10.2013,

the main written examination (for selection), as part of the second phase, was

held; those who had been declared successful in the preliminary examination

were allowed to compete. On 28.01.2013, the model answers to the main

3

examinations were published; the BSSC elicited comments and objections to the

model answers.

5.The BSSC constituted a committee of experts to examine the objections;

their report suggested changes with respect to 13 questions. The acceptance of

the report meant consequential revision of the result. This led to the filing of five

writ petitions, before the Patna High Court. The results declared by the BSSC

were impugned on diverse grounds, including that the original number of

vacancies could not have been increased; that the increase in the number of

candidates was arbitrary and that the final results were based on answers to

various questions, which were wrong.

6.The single judge, after considering the contentions of the parties on

merits, held that the increase in the number of vacancies to be considered for

selection and appointment beyond the initially advertised number, was valid and

in consonance with the law declared by this court; it was further held that the

increase in the number of candidates allowed to compete for the post (i.e. 27,289

instead of the original 16,425 declared successful in the preliminary test) was

justified, despite that number exceeding the ratio (of consideration of five

candidates for one post) because of the revision in the results. The change in the

result as a consequence of the expert committee’s report adversely impacted 915

candidates who had been previously declared successful in the result of the

preliminary test declared on 12.04.2012. By an order of the Patna High Court in

Manoj Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.

1

, it was held that these candidates should

not be disturbed by the change in result. The BSSC, therefore, retained these 915

candidates on the list of successful candidates. Further, the change in answers

caused the inclusion of several others who now obtained the same marks as

these 915 candidates. This resultant increase in the number of successful

candidates from 16,425 to 27,289 was held to be permissible by the single judge.

1

2012 (1) PLJR 542

4

After examining the merits of the answers accepted by the BSSC, the single

judge was of the opinion that question numbers 82, 147, 148 and 149 were

incorrect; the writ petitions were allowed, with a direction to BSSC to re-

evaluate the answer sheets of the candidates after deleting the said four

questions.

7.Two appeals were preferred against that decision of the single judge. It

was contended that the BSSC had wrongly assessed question nos. 61, 62, 67, 82,

98, 107, 111, 124, 125, 148 and 149. By the impugned judgment, the Division

Bench partly allowed the appeals. The operative directions in the impugned

judgment are extracted below:

“22. Thus, the only change we find is with regard to question No. 69

where the correct answer is option (A). In respect of question No. 98,

the correct answer is option (D). The correct answer to question No.

107 is not available and has to be deleted. In respect of question No.

111, we hold that it should not be deleted and the correct answer is

option (C).

23. Thus, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned

Single Judge only to the extent of these four questions in the manner

indicated hereinabove.

24. Thus, the inevitable result would be, in order to ensure fairness of

procedure of selection, the results which were revised and published

pursuant to orders of the learned Single Judge would call for a further

revision in respect of the four questions as noted in the preceding

paragraphs but it would not follow that as per the fresh revised results

of persons who had already been selected and appointed and have

been working but who do not make the mark this time would be

disqualified and dismissed. We hold that this would be highly

iniquitous inasmuch as they are not guilty of any fraud, malpractice

but are mere victims of mistake committed not by them. We have

already noted judgments of the Apex Court in the cased Rajesh Kumar

(supra) and Vikash Pratap Singh (supra) in these regards but again

that does not end the matter. By change of answers of these four

questions, as noted above, there may be some persons, who are now

found to have made to the final merit list but, were not selected earlier

5

leaving them out would be injustice. There would not be many such

persons.

25. Having considered the matter, we would accordingly order that

such persons who now come into the merit list would have to be

adjusted, if vacancies were there were (sic) or there are vacancies

available in cadre, for which examination were held. Their inter se

seniority in the cadre to which they are allotted would be determined

by inter se merit position, irrespective of their date of appointment.

We order accordingly. With these observations and directions,

these Letter Patent Appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.”

8. The appellants in civil appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 29764-65/2015

are aggrieved by the impugned judgment; their complaint is that the Division

Bench confined the relief in respect of only four wrong answers; according to

them, there were other defective questions or wrong answers: they argue that

question nos. 61, 62, 67, 82, 98, 107, 111, 124, 125, 148 and 149 should be

deleted altogether (as against the interference with respect to four question nos.,

i.e 69, 98, 107 and 111). The appellants in civil appeals arising out of SLP(C)

30109/2016, on the other hand, urge that answers to question nos. 61, 82, 119,

124, 125 and 135 have to be corrected, and the revised merit list should be

published on the basis of such corrected result. The BSSC, in its appeal arising

out of SLP(C) Nos. 23202-04/2015, on the other hand, urges that after the

judgment of the learned single judge, appointments were made since the

grievance of the writ petitioners had been substantially mitigated. It was in the

context of appeals preferred by private respondents (some of whom are before

this Court) who found that their names were out of zone of consideration, that

the Division Bench delivered the impugned judgment.

9. It is submitted that the directions in the impugned judgment, which

include those requiring the accommodation of candidates who were to come in

the merit list as against the vacancies available in the cadre without disturbing

6

appointments already made, is violative of well-established and settled

principles of service law. It is highlighted that if the impugned directions are to

be complied with, there would be several complications inasmuch as the

recommendations for 3285 vacancies were against 21 different categories of

posts many of which require additional qualifications. This, it is urged would

also include creation of supernumerary post.

10.After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court had issued notice

on 30.10.2015. In the meanwhile, on 28.09.2015 the BSSC was asked to work

out the judgment in terms of the directions contained to show the likely results.

11.The Court had on 25.09.2019 passed the following order:

“Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties, we are of the

view that the Bihar Public Service Commission should appoint an

Expert Committee consisting of three members in order to determine

what is the correct answer to the questions which are appended as

part of this order. The Expert Committee to be appointed within a

period of two weeks from today. The Expert Committee will then

submit its report in a sealed cover to this Court within a period of

four weeks from the date on which the Committee is formed.

The Expert Committee is left with the discretion to co-opt persons of

their choice in assisting them.

Representations of parties to be submitted within a period of two

weeks from today so that the Committee may consider them as and

when it is constituted.

List after six weeks.”

12.The questions which were referred to the Committee of Experts, extracted

in a Tabular Form as part of the order of 25.09.2019 is set out below:

S.No. QUESTIONS WITH FOUR OPTIONS

1. 61. The Primary Product of Photosynthesis is:

(A) Citric Acid (B) Glucose (C) Starch (D) Maltose

7

2.69. Which technique has been possible only after development of recombinant DNA

Technology:

(A) DNA Fingerprinting (B) Monoclonal antibody production (C) Fermentation (D)

Vaccination

3. 82. The largest beach in India is in

(A) Kerala (B) Goa (C) Tamil Nadu (D) West Bengal

4. 98. 2 x (3+4) is equal to:

(A) (3 x 4) +2 (B) (2 x 4) + 3 (C) (3 x 2) + 4 (D) (2 x 3) + ( 2

x 4)

S.No. QUESTIONS WITH FOUR OPTIONS

5. 107. Which term comes next in the series YEB, WFD, UHG, SKL?

(A) QGL (B) TOL (C) QNL (D) QOL

6. 111. If dust is called air, air is called fire, fire is called water, water is called colour,

colour is called rain and rain is called dust, then where do fish live?

(A) Fire (B) Water (C) Colour (D) Dust

7. 119. Arrange in the logical sequence 1) Butterfly 2) Cocoon 3) Egg 4) Worm

(A) 1,3,4,2 (B) 1,4,3,2 (C) 2,4,1,3 (D) 3,4,2,1

8. 124. Given the statements - “No fruit is tree. All flowers are trees”, which one of the

following is correct?

(A) No fruit is flower (B) Some trees are flowers (C) All flowers are fruits (D)

None of these

9. 125. Given the statements: All windows are doors and no door is wall.

(A) No window is wall (B) No wall is door (C) Some windows are walls (D)

None of these.

10.135. How many minimum steps are necessary to change the word ‘SLEEP’ into

‘DREAM’?

You have to change one letter at a time and all changes should result in a meaningful

word.

(A) 5 (B) 4 (C) 6 (D) 7

8

13.The report of the Committee of four Experts - Dr. S.K. Srivastava,

Professor (Retired), PG Deptt. of Zoology, Patna University, Patna & Former

Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna; Dr. L.N. Ram, Professor (Retired) PG

Deptt. of Geography, Patna University, Patna & Former Vice Chancellor, Patna

University, Patna; Dr. Binod Kumar Pandey, Prof. & Head, PG Deptt. of

Statistics, Patna University, Patna and Dr. Balgangadhar Prasad, Professor

(Retired), PG Deptt. of Mathematics, Patna University, Patna & Co-opted

Member, was set out in the common report dated 04.11.2019. The summary of

the extract (of the answers to the questions) is set out below:

“The answer to the question by the Expert Committee against the

order dated 25.09.2019 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

SLP (C) No. 23202-23204/2015 with SLP (C) No. 29764-

29765/2015, SLP (C) No. 30109/2016 is below:

Srl. No. Q. No. Correct Answer

1. 61 B

2. 69 A

3. 82 C

4. 98 D

5. 107 No option is correct

6. 111 D

7. 119 D

8. 124 A

9. 125 Two options are correct

10. 135 C

The explanation is given on separate pages.”

9

14.The report also contains detailed reasoning in justification of the answers,

determined to be correct according to the experts. The detailed reasoning too is

in a common document, prepared unanimously by four experts.

15. It is argued on behalf of the BSSC that the process of selection in the

present case is very complex as altogether 3285 vacancies in 21 posts requiring

different qualifications under various departments were notified, and

recommendations had been sent by the commission long ago in the year 2013, in

compliance with the judgment passed in the writ petition. The recommendations

were made on the basis of merit cum choice and suitability of a candidate for a

particular post.

16. It is thus argued that any modification in the result, in compliance with the

order passed in the impugned judgment or in terms of the report of the

committee, would result in administrative chaos as well as in “a tsunami of

litigation”. The exercise would drastically alter the final result, and not only a

large number of candidates recommended, selected and appointed would be

ousted but it would also result in alteration in service and inter-se seniority

position of a large number of candidates already appointed and working for the

past six years. It is stated that even confining the result to the candidates who

were in litigation before the High Court or this court will not help, as candidates

who had not claimed revision of result will, on the principles of parity, claim

appointment and those already appointed will claim change in services as per

their revised merit position and /or inter-se seniority in the services.

17.It is submitted that initially this court by order dated 28.09.2015 directed

BSSC to work out the impugned judgment and show the likely result therein.

Pursuant to that order, the BSSC filed additional affidavits dated 24.09.2015 and

28.10.2015. After considering them, this court by its order dated 31.10.2015

issued notice and stayed the impugned judgment. The effect of change of result

10

could well be anticipated from the following data indicated in the two additional

affidavits (with regard to only four questions):

(a)249 candidates will have to be removed from service and

similar number of candidates will be eligible for appointment.

(b)If 249 candidates are to be retained, as directed by the High

Court, then to give appointment to 249 new candidates and to

maintain reservation roster, 688 additional posts will be required.

(c)It is submitted that this will further result in change of

posts/services of 1162 candidates already appointed and if they have

to be retained at their old posts, then a total of 3362 posts will be

required.

18. It is argued that now if the recommendation of the committee of experts is

implemented, then around 3000 to 6000 additional posts, in addition to those

already advertised, would be required to be created to absorb the effect of

alteration of result. It is urged that to avoid litigation and administrative chaos,

in the light of the judgment of this court in Ran Vijay Singh vs State of UP

2

, it

may be directed that the result published, recommendation sent and

appointments made on the basis of the judgment of the learned single judge

should not be interfered with. In Ran Vijay Singh (supra), this court held that:

“31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not

play any role in the matter of directing or not directing revaluation of

an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination

authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire

examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because

some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some

injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an

erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might

suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is

not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse

--- exclude the suspect or offending question.”

2

(2018) 2 SCC 357

11

19.The tabular comparative statement for the answers according to the

experts appointed under directions of this court, and the relative claim of the

candidates, is extracted below:

Tabular comparative statement of the results of disputed questions

S.No.Questions which are in issue BSSC’s

opinion

SJ DB SC

experts

Candidates

claim

1. 61. The primary product of

Photosynthesis is

(A) Citric Acid (B) Glucose (C)Starch

(D) Maltose

(B) (B)

(Pg. 255)

(B)

(Pg.42)

(B) (C)

2. 69. Which technique has been possible

only after development of recombinant

DNA technology:

(A) DNA Fingerprinting (B) Monoclonal

antibody production (C)Fermentation (D)

Vaccination

(D) (D)

(Pg. 190)

(A)

(Pg. 43)

(A) (A)

3. 82. The largest beach in India is in

(A) Kerala (B) Goa (C)Tamil Nadu (D)

West Bengal

DeleteDelete

(Pg. 248)

Delete

(Pg.44)

(C) (C)

4. 98. 2 x (3+4) is equal to:

(A) (3x4)+2 (B) (2x4)+3

(C)(3x2)+4 (D) (2x3)+(2x4)

(A&D)(A&D)

(Pg.190

& 242)

(D)

(Pg.45)

(D) (A &D)

5. 107. Which term comes next in the series

YEB, WFD, UHG, SKL?

(A) QGL (B) TOL (C)QNL

(D) QOL

(D) (D)

(Pg. 257)

Delete(

Pg.46)

DeleteDelete

6. 111. If dust is called air, air is called fire,

fire is called water, water is called colour,

colour is called rain and rain is called

dust, then where do fish live?

(A) Fire (B) Water (C)Colour

(D) Dust

DeleteDelete

(Pg.194,

243 &

256)

(C)

(Pg.47)

(D) (C)

7. 119. Arrange in logical sequence: 1)

Butterfly 2) Cocoon 3) Egg 4) Worm

(A) 1,3,4,2 (B) 1,4,3,2 (C) 2,4,1,3 (D)

3,4,2,1

(A&D)A&D

(Pg.242)

Not

pressed

(D) (A&D)

(Pg.95 Gr.I)

8. 124. Given the statements - “No fruit is

tree. All flowers are trees”, which one of

the following is correct?

(A) No fruit is flower (B) Some trees are

flowers (C)All flowers are fruits (D)

None of these.

(A) (A)

(Pg. 257)

(A)

Pg.47)

(A) (A&B)

(Pg. 95 Gr. J)

9. 125. Given the statements: All windows (A) (A) (A) (A&B)(A&B)

12

are doors and no door is wall.

(A) No window is wall (B) No wall is

door (C)Some windows are walls (D)

None of these.

(Pg.257)(Pg.48)Delete(Pg. 96 Gr.K)

10.135. How many minimum steps are

necessary to change the word ‘SLEEP’

into ‘DREAM’?

You have to change one letter at a time

and all changes should result in a

meaningful word.

(A) 5 (B) 4 (C)6 (D) 7

(A) Not

pressed

Not

pressed

(C) (B)

It is evident that the experts appointed by this court have recommended that two

questions (at S. Nos. 5 and 9) should be deleted for the purpose of evaluation,

because of defective or ambiguous (i.e. more than one) answers. It is a matter of

record that one set of petitioners approached the High Court, complaining of

arbitrariness in the declaration of results, as a consequence of defective

evaluation. Before they had approached the court, the BSSC had undertaken the

exercise of submitting the results to expert evaluation, and then revised the key

answers, deleting (from consideration) certain questions. The exercise was

undertaken again by the BSSC, which complied with the single judge’s

directions. As a result of that exercise, several candidates were appointed. The

Division bench, regrettably, in the context of appeals by candidates who had

been originally selected, who questioned the decision of the board to have the

re-evaluation, questioned the revised merit list. Others who had approached the

Division Bench were those who were excluded from selection, after the single

judge’s decision.

20.This court reiterates that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 in

matters concerning evaluation of candidates-particularly, for purpose of

recruitment to public services is narrow. The previous decisions of the court

3

;

3

Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another v. Paritosh

Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors (1984) 4 SCC 27; Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public

Service Commission, Patna & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 714; Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas

13

have constantly underscored that in the absence of any provision for re-

evaluation of answer sheets, judicial review should be rarely exercised -

preferably under exceptional circumstances. A three judge Bench of this court, in

Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra) held as follows:

"Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision

wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his

answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the

answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the

answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there

has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and

noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book.

There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the

marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the

absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the

relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right

whatsoever to claim or ask for re- evaluation of his marks."

In Khushboo Shrivastava (supra) too, a similar view was echoed:

"7. We find that a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pramod

Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission,

Patna and Ors. (supra) has clearly held relying on Maharashtra State

Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v.

Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors. (supra) that in the absence of

any provision for the re-evaluation of answers books in the relevant

rules, no candidate in an examination has any right to claim or ask

for re-evaluation of his marks. The decision in Pramod Kumar

Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and

Ors. (supra) was followed by another three-Judge Bench of this Court

in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda and Anr.

(2004) 13 SCC 383 in which the direction of the High Court for re-

evaluation of answers books of all the examinees securing 90% or

above marks was held to be unsustainable in law because the

regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which

Ranjan Panda (2004) 13 SCC 383; Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur

& Anr (2010) 6 SCC 759; Gangadhara Palo v. Revenue Divisional Officer & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 602;

Central Board of Secondary Education Through Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental

Entrance Examination & Ors. v. Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors (2014) 14 SCC 523 and Ran Vijay

Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2018) 2 SCC 357.

14

conducted the examination, did not make any provision for re-

evaluation of answers books in the rules.

8. In the present case, the bye-laws of the All India Pre-

Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 2007 conducted by the

CBSE did not provide for re-examination or re-evaluation of answers

sheets. Hence, the Appellants could not have allowed such re-

examination or re-evaluation on the representation of the Respondent

No. 1 and accordingly rejected the representation of the Respondent

No. 1 for re-examination/re-evaluation of her answer sheets. The

Respondent No. 1, however, approached the High Court and the

learned Single Judge of the High Court directed production of answer

sheets on the Respondent No. 1 depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and

when the answer sheets were produced, the learned Single Judge

himself compared the answers of the Respondent No. 1 with the model

answers produced by the CBSE and awarded two marks for answers

given by the Respondent No. 1 in the Chemistry and Botany, but

declined to grant any relief to the Respondent No. 1. When

Respondent No. 1 filed the LPA before the Division Bench of the High

Court, the Division Bench also examined the two answers of the

Respondent No. 1 in Chemistry and Botany and agreed with the

findings of the learned Single Judge that the Respondent No. 1

deserved two additional marks for the two answers. In our considered

opinion, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of

the High Court could have substituted his/its own views for that of the

examiners and awarded two additional marks to the Respondent No. 1

for the two answers in exercise of powers of judicial review under

Article 226 of the Constitution as these are purely academic matters.

This Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher

Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and

Ors. (supra) has observed:

... As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the

Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own

views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to

academic matters in preference to those formulated by

professional men possessing technical expertise and rich

experience of actual day-to-day working of educational

institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be

wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely

idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated

from the actual realities and grass root problems involved

15

in the working of the system and unmindful of the

consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic

view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be

propounded....

9. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned

judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the

High Court and dismiss the writ petition. There shall be no order as to

costs. We are informed that the first Respondent was admitted to the

MBBS Course subsequently. If so, her admission in the MBBS Course

will not be affected."

21. The decision in Ran Vijay Singh (supra f.n.2), after a review of all

previous decisions, held as follows:

"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only

propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a

statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-

evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a

matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may

permit it;

(ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not

permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from

prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re- evaluation or scrutiny

only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process

of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or

exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;

(iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer

sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter and academic

matters are best left to academics;

(iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and

proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the

benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the

candidate.

XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this

Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference

by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the

examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are

16

under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and

sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of

uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a

tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be

forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great

efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the

task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must

consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the

examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by

the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination

and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic

example of the consequence of such interference where there is no

finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight

years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are

left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the

examination-whether they have passed or not; whether their result

will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get

admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get

recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to

anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in

confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of

all this is that public interest suffers."

22.Given the clear declaration of law in the judgments of this court, we are of

the opinion that the unilateral exercise of re-valuation undertaken by the High

Court (both by the single judge and the Division Bench) has not solved, but

rather contributed to the chaos. No rule or regulation was shown by any party

during the hearing, which justified the approach that was adopted. The BSSC, in

our opinion, acted correctly in the first instance, in referring the answers to a

panel of experts. If there were justifiable doubts about the recommendations of

that panel, the least that should have been done, was to require the BSSC to refer

the disputed or doubtful questions to another expert panel. That was not done;

the “corrections” indicated by the single judge were accepted by the BSSC;

several candidates who made it to the select list freshly drawn up pursuant to his

directions, were appointed. The Division Bench, thereafter undertook the entire

exercise afresh, compounding the matter further by not referring the disputed

17

questions to any panel of experts. We are left reiterating the lament, (made in

Ran Vijay) that the High Court’s interference has not resulted in finality “to the

result of the examinations” despite a long lapse of time. There is an air of

uncertainty about the entire selection - nay, the entire cadre, because the inter se

seniority of selected (and appointed) candidates is in a state of flux.

23.As noticed earlier, the committee of experts appointed by this court has

made its recommendations. Since the exercise indicates that the previous re-

evaluations (by the single judge and the division bench- both made in the

absence of expert recommendations) are not correct or accurate, as an

exceptional case, we propose to accept them. This approach of ours is in tune

with a recent judgment of this court in Pranav Verma v. Registrar General of

High Court of Punjab & Haryana

4

, where the court accepted the

recommendations of a single member committee and directed revision of results

in a public examination, relating to recruitment of candidates to judicial service.

24.As a result of the above discussion, the BSSC is directed to evaluate and

publish the results afresh, in the light of the recommendations and report of the

experts (constituted by this court) subject to care being taken by the BSSC and

the Govt. of Bihar, not to disturb appointments made previously pursuant to the

directions of the single judge. In case the number of selected candidates (on the

basis of the revised result) exceeds the vacancies available as on the last date

indicated for consideration (in the concerned recruitment or recruitments), the

state of Bihar would accommodate the excess numbers in the relevant cadres as

against future vacancies arising till 31.12.2019. This court is hereby making

these directions to put a quietus on the dispute, in exercise of its extraordinary

powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

4

2019 SCC OnLine SC 1610

18

25.For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment of the Patna High

Court, as well as the judgment of the single judge are hereby set aside; the

appeals are disposed of in the above terms without order on costs.

.......................................................J

[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]

.......................................................J

[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]

New Delhi,

May 06, 2020.