IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5217 of 2023

======================================================

Dr. Eena Bahan Daughter of Late Ramadhar Prasad, Wife of Raj Shekhar

Prasad Resident of 8E/13, Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S.-

New Agamkuan, District- Patna, Bihar- 800026. ... ... Petitioner.

Versus

1.The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.The Secretary, Department of Science and Technology Government of Bihar,

Patna.

3.The Director, Department of Science and Technology, Government of Bihar,

Patna.

4.The Bihar Public Service Commission, through the Secretary, 15 Jawahar

Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001.

5.The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Jawahar Lal Nehru

Marg, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001.

6.The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Jawahar Lal Nehru

Marg, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001.

7.The Controller of Examination of Bihar Public Service Commission, 15

Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna- 800001.

8.Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Ramchandra Prasad, R/o Ramraji Road,

Maripur, P.s. Kazimohamadpur, Dist-Muzaffarpur.

9.Biplab Goswami, S/o Tapas Kumar Goswami, R/o Arrah Bidhan Park,

Malandighi, P.S. Kanksa, District Paschim Bardhaman, West Bengal.

10.Kumar Sanjay Sinha, S/o Rabi Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava, R/o 105

Sushma Sadan, P.S. Gopalganj, District Gopalganj.

11.Jyoti Gautam, D/o Prempal Singh, r/o P.S. Mundha Pandey, District

Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh.

12.Manoj Das, s/o Dhirendra Nath Das, r/o Vivekanand Pally, P.S. Kutti,

District Paschim Bardhman, West Bengal.

... ... Respondents.

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Advocate

For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta, GP-10

Mr. Virendra Kumar, AC to GP-10

For the respondent nos.8 to 12 : Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 30-04-2024

Heard Mr. Kumar Kaushik, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned senior counsel assisted by

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

2/26

Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned Advocate, for the Bihar Public

Service Commission, Mr. Harsh Singh, learned counsel for the

respondent nos.8 to 12 and Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta,

learned counsel for the State.

2. By the present writ application, the petitioner seeks the

following reliefs:

i. For issuance of an order, direction or

a writ of certiorari for quashing and

setting aside the result of written

examination published by the Bihar

Public Service Commission on

25.03.2023 against Advertisement

No.63/2020 issued for appointment of

Assistant Professor in various

Engineering Colleges of the Government

of Bihar inasmuch the aforesaid result

has been published by using an

erroneous modal answer key prepared

by the Respondent Commission.

ii. For issuance of an order, direction

or a writ of mandamus for directing the

respondent Commission to change the

modal answer key in Set B to the

following extent and thereafter revise

the result using the correct answer key:

(a) Question No. 17 has been

erroneously deleted and its correct

answer is option C.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

3/26

(b) Question No.20 has no correct

answer and, therefore, it ought to be

deleted instead of evaluating on the

basis of option D.

(c) The answer of Question No.27

should be changed from option D to

option A.

(d) The answer of Question No.54

should be changed from option B to

option C.

iii. For issuance of an order, direction

or a writ of mandamus for directing

the respondent Commission to

accordingly revise the result and

consider the petitioner for

appointment against Advertisement

No.63/2020 published on 24.09.2020,

iv. For issuance of an order direction

or a writ of mandamus for directing

the Respondent Commission to get the

answer key evaluated by a fresh body

of independent experts and thereafter

publish a revised result on the basis of

answer key suggested by them

inasmuch as the experts of the

Commission have published the

answer key on five occasions and

have appeared to be unsure about the

answer to the questions prepared by

the Commission.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

4/26

v. For issuance of an order, direction

or an appropriate writ of restraining

the respondent Commission from

proceeding any further in the selection

process on the hasis of the impugned

result published on 25.03.2023 against

Advertisement No. 63/ 2020 during the

pendency of the present writ

application and further from

precluding them from conducting

interview scheduled from 11.04.2023

to 14.03.2023.

Brief facts of the case

3. The Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter

in short referred to as the ‘Commission’) issued an

advertisement, bearing number 63/2020, on 24.09.2020, inviting

online applications from eligible candidates for appointment to

the 59 vacant posts of Assistant Professor in the subject of

Physics in various Government Engineering Colleges in the

State of Bihar. The petitioner, who belongs to WBC category,

finding herself eligible for the said post, applied for the same.

4. The said advertisement prescribed 20 marks for

academic record and research performance, 40 marks for

evaluation of domain knowledge and teaching skill through

written examination (objective), 15 marks for interview and 25

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

5/26

marks for Assistant Professor engaged on contract basis with a

rider that a candidate shall be eligible for five marks for every

completed year subject to the maximum of 25 marks. The

advertisement further prescribed that the candidates are required

to secure minimum qualifying marks, which, in the case of

petitioner, who is a female, was 32 percent. Since the written

examination was of 40 marks, the candidates were required to

secure 12.08 marks out of 40 marks.

5. The examination for the said post was conducted

on 23.10.2022 in which the petitioner participated. In the

examination, the petitioner was given booklet series ‘B’ in the

subject of Physics, which contained 80 questions in all. All the

questions carried equal marks and there was no provision of

negative marking, hence the petitioner attempted all the

questions.

6. On 12.11.2022, the Commission published a notice

that the provisional answer key of all four sets of questions

papers inter alia in the subject of Physics are being published.

The Commission invited objection from the candidates by way

of speed post before 02.11.2022. In pursuance thereof, the

petitioner filed her objection by speed post on 17.11.2022,

which was received well within the time and she has raised

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

6/26

objection with respect to the following questions:

Sl. No.Q. No.Option suggested by the petitionerOption given as correct answer

in the provisional answer key

1. 17 C B

2. 26 D B

3. 27 A D

4. 28 No answer is correct should be

deleted

B

5. 29 No answer is correct should be

deleted

B

6. 36 B A

7. 46 Question is wrong and hence

should be deleted

D

7. Thereafter, the Commission published another

notice on 10.11.2023, inviting second objection from the

candidates and a revised second provisional answer key was

published on the basis of the first objection along with the

notice dated 10.11.2023. The Commission deleted two questions

and the grievance of the petitioner with respect to question

numbers 17, 36 and 46 was redressed. The option with respect

to question numbers 17 and 36 was changed by the Commission

and question no. 46 was deleted as per the objection of the

petitioner. The petitioner’s grievance with respect to other

question remained and some new grievances had arisen as some

questions, which were corrected according to the petitioner in

the first provisional answer key, had been changed in the second

provisional answer key. Thus, the petitioner filed another

objection through email on 13.01.2023, raising her grievance as

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

7/26

follows:

Sr.

No.

Q. No. By the petitionerProvisional answer key2

nd

provisional

answer key

1. 24 A and D A D

2. 27 A D D

3. 28 None is correctB B

4. 29 None is correctB B

5. 74 B C B

8. Thereafter, the Commission published a

notification dated 19.01.2023, by which the Commission invited

the candidates, who had raised objection, in its office on

21.01.2023, for a meeting with the experts. The petitioner

appeared on the appointed date with evidence in support of her

objection, but no physical discussion was allowed with the

experts as they were not present physically in the office of the

Commission rather the officials of the Commission enabled the

petitioner to have a telephonic conversation with two experts

one by one. The experts assured the petitioner that apart from

other objections, question no. 27 will be considered. The

petitioner filed a fresh representation through email on

23.01.2023, by which she produced evidence with respect to her

claim on question no. 27.

9. The petitioner filed another representation on

24.01.2023 through e-mail and claimed that question no.27 may

be examined afresh by the experts of the subject of Mathematics

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

8/26

and Physics. Thereafter, the Commission published a final

answer key on 24.01.2023 in which six questions were deleted

and even the questions having one correct answer were included

in the list of deleted questions and some answers, which were

already correct in the first provisional answer key, have been

changed. Now, the grievance of the petitioner with respect to

question no.74 was redressed in the final answer key as the

correct answer was again restored to option ‘B’ as in the first

provisional answer key, but the grievance of the petitioner with

respect to question nos.17 and 24 remained as both the

questions had one correct answer but yet they had been deleted.

The grievance of the petitioner with respect to question nos.27,

28 and 29 also remained as those three questions ought to have

been deleted. Thus, a fresh grievance had arisen with respect to

question no.54, as the option, which was earlier correct, was

changed in the final answer key from C to B. The petitioner

filed another representation on 30.01.2023 along with the

certificates of eminent Professors. In so far as question numbers

20, 27, 28 and 29 are concerned, the petitioner had categorically

given the solved answer along with concrete evidence in her

application. The application of the petitioner was received in the

office of the Commission physically on the same day and it was

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

9/26

also sent through e-mail. The grievance raised by the petitioner

in her representation was as follows:-

Sr.

No.

Q. No. Option suggested by the

petitioner

Option in the final answer key

1. 17 C Deleted

2. 20 None is correct D

3. 27 A D

4. 28 &

29

None is correct B

5. 54 C B

10. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representations on

31.01.2023 and 04.02.2023 before the Chairman of the

Commission giving the opinion of one eminent Professor of

Patliputra University against question nos.20, 27, 28, and 29.

She filed another representation on 14.02.2023 along with a

certificate of one Professor Dr. Aasheshwar Yadav in support of

her claim regarding question nos.17, 20, 27, 28, 29 and 54. The

Commission issued a further notice on 23.02.2023 by which the

revised final answer key was published and two answers were

again changed in accordance with the objection of the petitioner

and question numbers 28 and 29 were deleted. Thus, total

number of 8 questions were deleted and the evaluation was done

against 32 questions. The rest of the objection of the petitioner

was not redressed.

11. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a further

representation on 24.02.2023 with respect to the remaining four

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

10/26

questions i.e. question nos.17, 20, 27, and 54 along with

certificate of four eminent professors. The Commission issued a

fresh notice dated 28.02.2023, inviting further objection with

respect to question numbers 9 and 10 of Set ‘A’ in the revised

final answer key dated 23.02.2023, which questions are

equivalent to question nos. 28 and 29 of Set ‘B’. The petitioner

filed a fresh representation on 03.03.2023 including question

numbers 28 and 29 requesting that since none of the answers are

correct, they should be deleted. The petitioner also raised her

objection with respect to question numbers 17, 20, 27 and 54 of

Set ‘B’. Lastly, the Commission published the final (third)

model answer key on 17.03.2023 in which the question numbers

28 and 29 have been deleted, but the grievance of the petitioner

with respect to the other four questions remained unredressed.

The Commission published the result on 25.03.2023, however,

the petitioner did not qualify in her category. The petitioner

expects that if two out of four objections is accepted, she would

qualify in the examination. Hence, this writ application.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner

12. Mr. Kumar Kaushik, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner has, inter alia, contended that the

Commission published the result on 25.03.2023 in which the

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

11/26

petitioner was not declared successful. The petitioner, as per her

estimation, has answered 22 questions correctly and if two out

of her four questions were to be accepted she would secure the

minimum cut-off marks as per the advertisement. He further

contended that the five experts have given a certificate that the

answer of the Commission is erroneous. Those certificates have

been issued by distinguished Professors and are contained in

Annexure-16 series to the writ petition. Another certificate is

contained in Annexure-22 to the writ petition enclosed with

rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner against counter

affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission. He further

contended that from the aforesaid facts, it is evidently clear that

experts have not objectively considered the answer key and the

same is not fit to be accepted since they have changed the same

answers on various occasions and have published revised

answer key on four occasions after the provisional answer key

was published on 22.11.2022.

12. He further contended that it is well settled law

that application of an erroneous answer key leads to an

erroneous result and is sufficient to vitiate the entire result. In

support of his contentions, he placed reliance inter alia on the

following judgments:

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

12/26

(i) Rajesh Kumar and others vs. The State of

Bihar and others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 690

(ii) Manish Ujwal and others vs. Maharishi

Dayanand Saraswati University and others

reported in (2015) 13 SCC 744

(iii) Gurunanak Dev University vs. Swamil Garg

and others reported in (2005) 13 SCC 749

(iv) Rishal vs. Rajasthan Public Service

Commission reported in (2018) 8 SCC 81

(v) Kanpur University vs. Sameer Gupta reported

in (1983) 4 SCC 309

13. It is lastly contended that the petitioner has

consistently filed representations and has referred to various

certificates given by experts of different Universities, who have

given a certificate that the answer key published by the

Commission is erroneous with respect to the questions

mentioned in the certificates given by them. The same experts

of the Commission have been giving different opinions on

different occasions with regard to the same questions. When

they had examined the answer key of all 80 questions for the

first time on 05.01.2023, yet they published two provisional

answer keys and could not finalize the same. Thereafter, they

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

13/26

again changed some of the answers while publishing the final

answer key. Even after the final answer key was published yet

again two questions were deleted. Thereafter, another final

answer key was published. In toto, five answer keys have been

published by the Commission. The experts of the Commission

appear to be unsure about the answer. In an examination

containing multiple choice objective questions, especially in the

subject of physics, one answer specifically ought to have been

correct and the experts were expected to provide the correct

answers of all 80 questions in one meeting. Even if other

meetings were held, the fact that some answers were changed

clearly discloses that the answer key furnished by the

Commission is unsafe to be accepted for the purpose of public

employment. It directly affects the petitioner and even those

who have not approached this Hon'ble Court and affects theirs

right to be considered for public employment guaranteed under

Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is prayed that

this writ petition may be allowed.

Submissions on behalf of the Commission

14. Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned senior counsel, appearing

for the Commission has, inter alia, submitted that the questions

in preliminary test consists of 80 objective type questions of

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

14/26

subjects. The answer-sheets are OMR type like other objective

tests had multiple choice alternative answers for each question,

out of which only one answer would be correct answer. The

question paper of Physics was set by the setter. In order to

ensure that the candidates do not resort to plagiarism, the

question paper was printed in A, B, C and D series. However,

the seriatim in each of the four series jumbled up and arranged

in such a manner that the sequence of each question in one

series varies from that of the other series.

15. It is further submitted that the first page of

question booklet contains detailed instructions. Each of the

candidates was required to read the said instructions and follow

it while attempting to answer the same. On 12.11.2022, the

Commission published a notice in daily newspaper and in its

website intimating the candidates that the provisional answers

of the question booklet series A, B, C and D will be available on

the official website of the Commission from 12.11.2022 and it

was further informed that if any candidate have any objection

with regard to provisional answers of any question, they can

submit their objection/suggestion supported by reliable

source/evidence to the Commission by 21.11.2022 till 5 p.m.

16. It is further submitted that as per the norms of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

15/26

Commission, the key (the correct answers of the questions)

prepared by the question setters is checked and scrutinized by a

Committee of experts. The expert committee was constituted to

evaluate the key answers given by the question setters and

objection/suggestions submitted to the Commission by the

candidates.

17. It is further submitted that to satisfy the

objections/suggestions of the candidates, the Commission has

constituted the expert committee which has not only examined

the key answer one time but three times and thereafter, the final

result was published. There is no iota of doubt that the

Commission, in order to maintain the transparency in the

examination, at the first instance, published the model answer

key given by the question setter, invited objection/suggestion to

it and upon consideration of objections/suggestions received by

the expert committee published the provisional answer key and

again invited objection/suggestion to the provisional answer

key. The petitioner submitted her objection to the model answer

key and to the provisional answer key of series ‘B’. The expert

committee upheld her objection/suggestion. The petitioner is

down below in her category and her prayer for fresh evaluation

of answer key by another expert committee is fit to be rejected

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

16/26

in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh and Others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, in the case

of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Rahul

Singh & Ors. reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254 and in the case of

Bihar Public Service Commission vs. Ashish Kumar Pathak

& Ors. reported in 2021 (I) BLJ 673.

18. Mr. Shahi, learned senior counsel, summing up

his arguments, lastly submitted that the Commission had taken

all steps to maintain transparency in the examination and

thereafter the result was published. The petitioner, who could

not succeed in the examination, has filed the present writ

application in order to relaunch the whole process, which should

not be allowed.

Submissions on behalf of respondent nos.8 to 12

19. By order dated 14.09.2023, respondent nos. 8 to

12 have been added as intervenor respondents to this writ

application and they have been represented through Mr. Harsh

Singh, learned Advocate.

20. Mr. Harsh Singh, learned counsel for the

respondent nos.8 to 12, opposing the prayer made by the

petitioner, has submitted that respondent nos.8 to 12 had applied

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

17/26

pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Commission and

were declared successful in the written examination and were

called for interview on various dates in the month of April, 2023

in which they appeared and having performed very well are

optimistic of being successful in the final outcome of the

selection process.

21. It is further submitted that the final model answer

key, on the basis of which the impugned result has been

declared, was published after affording as many as five

opportunities to the candidates to submit their respective

objections including an opportunity of hearing, as admitted in

the writ petition as well. A candidate, who has participated in

the selection process, can not turn around and challenge the

same inasmuch as before the publication of the result of the

written examination adequate opportunities were given to the

candidates to file their objections/suggestions through

representations as well as hearings were afforded, which,

admittedly, was availed by the petitioner and was duly

considered on the basis of which the answer key were revised

and it was finalized by the experts after several rounds of

scrutiny.

22. It is further submitted that having taken a chance

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

18/26

and thereafter being declared unsuccessful, the petitioner can

not be permitted to turn around the same selection process in

which she participated without any demur and only because the

final outcome was not to the liking of the petitioner, she

challenged the same. At no stage she has objected to the

constitution of the expert committee or repeated reviews by the

same set of experts in different rounds of scrutiny, rather the

petitioner willfully participated in anticipation of a favourable

outcome. There is no specific pleading with regard to number of

marks obtained by the petitioner and the cut-off marks of

petitioner’s category and the number of marks by which the

petitioner missed the cut-off.

23. It is further submitted that the petitioner can not

claim as a matter of right for another round of scrutiny

inasmuch as the law is no longer res integra that a writ petition

can not be filed for creation of a right but only for redressal of

infringement of a vested right, which is absent in the present

case. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the answer

key/questions were so patently wrong that no reasonable man,

well versed in the subject, would deem them to be correct. To

buttress his submission, Mr. Harsh Singh relied upon the

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anupal

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

19/26

Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 173, in

Ramjit Singh Kardam vs. Sanjeev Kumar reported in (2020)

20 SCC 209 and in Ramesh Chandra Sah vs. Anil Joshi

reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309. Accordingly, it is submitted that

the writ petition has no merit and the same may be dismissed.

Conclusion and Analysis

24. This Court has considered the detailed arguments

addressed by Mr. Kumar Kaushik, for the petitioner, as also of

Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned senior counsel for the Commission and

Mr. Harsh Singh for the intervenor-respondents, carefully

scrutinized the materials available on record brought by the

respective parties and also considered the judgments relied upon

by the respective parties.

25. It is beyond cavil that a Court under Article 226

of the Constitution is limited and circumscribed in exercise of

its jurisdiction in respect of examination and its results for the

reason that the Court is neither an expert of the subject matter

nor it has any wherewithal to, subjectively or objectively,

evaluate or assess the correctness or otherwise of the answers.

The Court is also denuded of the expertise to comment upon or

make any independent assessment of whether the analysis and

conclusions reached by subject matter experts are correct or not.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

20/26

26. Although there are catena of judgments passed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the learned Division

Bench and the Coordinate Benches of this Court, in my

considered opinion, the law as evolved has been concluded into

certain propositions, duly summarized by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported

in (2018) 2 SCC 357 in paragraph-30, which is reproduced

herein below:

30. The law on the subject is therefore,

quite clear and we only propose to

highlight a few significant conclusions.

They are:

30.1. 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;

30.2. 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;

30.3. The court should not at all re-

evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets

of a candidate—it has no expertise in

the matter and academic matters are best

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

21/26

left to academics;

30.4. The court should presume the

correctness of the key answers and

proceed on that assumption; and

30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit

should go to the examination authority

rather than to the candidate.

(emphasis underlined)

27. Apart from that, a number of judgments have held

that only when the Court is convinced that the answer key is

“demonstrably wrong”, the Court may exercise its power of

judicial review. If the subject matter expert is able to give an

analysis, which appears to be reasonably intertwined with the

subject itself, the Court’s would be loath in interfering with such

conclusion. Though, there is no absolute bar for such

proposition and may depend on the peculiar facts of each case.

28. It is well settled principle of law that the onus is

on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is

correct, but also that it is a glaring mistake, which is totally

apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to

show that the key answer is wrong. The constitutional Courts

must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be

reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the

key answer.

29. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

22/26

advertisement issued by the Commission on 24.09.2020,

petitioner finding herself eligible applied for the post of

Assistant Professor of Physics. The examination for the said

post was conducted on 23.10.2022. The preliminary test

consisted of 80 objective type questions of the subject

concerned. The question paper was printed in four series i.e. A,

B, C and D series. However, the seriatim in each of the four

series jumbled up and arranged in such a manner that the

sequence of each question in one series varies from that of the

other series. No doubt, it was set by the expert of the subject

concerned i.e. of Physics, however, as per the norms of the

Commission, the key (correct answers of the questions)

prepared by the question setters was checked and scrutinized by

a committee of experts.

30. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has

consistently filed representations and has referred to various

certificates given by experts of different Universities, who have

given a certificate that the answer key prescribed by the

Commission is erroneous with respect to the questions

mentioned in the certificates given by them. The same experts

of the Commission have been giving different opinions on

different occasions with regard to the same questions. For the

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

23/26

first time, on 05.01.2023, they had examined the answer key of

all 80 questions, yet they published two provisional answer keys

and could not finalize the same. Thereafter, they again changed

some of the answers while publishing the final answer key.

Even after the final answer key was published, yet again two

questions were deleted. Thereafter, another final answer key

was published. In toto, five answer keys have been published by

the Commission, as per the averment of the petitioner and three

times as per the averment of the Commission. The experts of the

Commission appear to be not sure about the answer. In an

examination containing multiple choice objective questions,

especially in the subject of physics, one answer specifically

ought to have been correct and the experts were expected to

provide the correct answers of all 80 questions in one meeting.

Even if other meetings were held, the fact that some answers

were changed clearly discloses that the answer key furnished by

the Commission cannot be said to be safe to be accepted for the

purpose of public employment.

31. After going through the pleadings of the parties, it

appears that the expert committee constituted by the

Commission was not confident about the answer key suggested

by them inasmuch as it has not only changed its answer key not

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

24/26

once but two times. It cannot be denied that erroneous answer

key leads to erroneous result. This Court finds itself totally

incapacitated to examine the veracity of an answer to a

particular question as it does not have any expertise in relation

to the questions being set by an examining body. In my

considered opinion, a particular Judge may have a particular

knowledge relating to a particular subject, however, that

knowledge would not be sufficient to cast doubt about the

answer key with regard to a particular question. The petitioner

has brought on record several certificates of eminent professors

along with the reasoning why the particular answer is wrong or

right.

32. At this stage, this court is compelled to notice the

fact that while preparing the key answers, the expert of the

Commissions themselves could not reach to conclusive answer

to many questions, leading to review of the same and resulting

into publication of subsequent model key answers twice over

more particularly based on the materials made available by the

petitioner. The materials made available by the petitioner, i.e.,

the opinion of the renowned subject experts, requires

consideration by the Commission once again so far as it relates

to the petitioner.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

25/26

33. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case and the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, this

Court finds it expedient in the interest of justice to direct as

follows: -

(i) The Commission is directed to constitute a

fresh Committee consisting of five subject

experts of Indian Institute of Technology

(I.I.T.), Patna and N.I.T., Patna, who would be

obliged to find the definite answers of the

question numbers 17, 20, 27 and 54 of Set B.

In case, there is no unanimity amongst the

members of the committee, the majority view

with reasoning for reaching such conclusion

shall prevail.

(ii) The whole proceedings of the said expert

committee shall be reduced in writing to be

placed before the Commission.

(iii) The Commission shall, without affecting the

whole process undergone, consider the case of

the petitioner depending upon the outcome of

the report of the expert committee. If the case

of the petitioner finds support from the expert

Patna High Court CWJC No.5217 of 2023 dt.30-04-2024

26/26

committee, she shall be considered to be

called to appear at the interview.

(iv) The whole exercise shall be confined to the

case of the petitioner only.

(v) The whole exercise must be concluded within

a period of ten days from the date of receipt/

production of a copy of this judgment.

(v) The interim order dated 18.04.2023 shall

automatically vacated once the aforesaid

directions are implemented.

34. This writ application stands disposed of with the

aforesaid observations and directions.

Trivedi/-

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 21.03.2024

Uploading Date 30.04.2024

Transmission Date NA