Doctrine of Selective Re‑Examination in Competitive Examinations

Introduction

Pappu Kumar v. The State of Bihar is a batch of writ petitions decided by the Patna High Court on March 28, 2025. The petitions challenged the conduct and result of the 70^th Combined (Preliminary) Competitive Examination held by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) in December 2024 and January 2025. Petitioner groups included individual aspirants and a Public Interest Litigation by Anand Legal Aid Forum Trust. They alleged systemic failures—logistical mismanagement, paper leaks at the largest centre (Bapu Pariksha Parisar, Patna), wrong answer keys, opaque normalization talk, and unfair evaluation—that, they claimed, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They prayed for cancellation of the entire examination and a full re‑test. The Commission countered that only one centre was vitiated, and it had already ordered a re‑examination there, protecting thousands of other candidates from undue hardship.

Summary of the Judgment

The Acting Chief Justice and Justice Partha Sarthy held that:

The allegation of large‑scale malpractice was confined to one centre (BPP, Patna). There was no credible proof of systemic irregularities at all 912 centres.
BPSC’s decision to hold a re‑examination for only that centre complied with settled law: where tainted and untainted candidates can be segregated, only the affected centre’s candidates must retake the test.
There was no justification to cancel the entire exam—such an order would unfairly penalize compliant candidates and undermine public confidence in the process.
Objections to answer keys were referred to a High‑Level Expert Committee; questions found problematic were deleted, and final keys were adopted with published reasons. The Court would not re‑evaluate those keys absent a manifest, demonstrable error.
No prima facie reason existed to direct a broader or CBI inquiry into BPSC’s conduct. The petitioners’ social‑media posts and hearsay did not meet the threshold for systemic irregularity.
The writ petitions were dismissed. The Court recommended that BPSC constitute a permanent expert committee to review security, grievance redressal, and SOP compliance in future examinations.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Gurpal Singh v. State Of Punjab (2005): A PIL must show the petitioner’s credentials and prima facie correctness before allegations are entertained.
Sachin Kumar v. DSSSB (2021): Established the “selective cancellation doctrine”—if irregularities can be localized, only affected candidates must sit again.
Bihar School Examination Board v. Sinha (1970): Validated cancellation of an entire exam at one centre where mass copying was proved.
Anamica Mishra v. U.P. PSC (1990): Held that if error affects only one phase (e.g., interview), canceling the entire selection is disproportionate.
Rajesh Kumar v. State Of Bihar (2013): Directed re‑evaluation of answer papers rather than fresh exam when only key‑answer errors were found.
Rishal v. Rajasthan PSC (2018) and Ran Vijay Singh v. U.P. (2018): Reinforced that Courts should not re‑evaluate academic keys and must presume expert committee correctness unless a question is palpably wrong.
Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India (2024): Reaffirmed that cancellation is justified only where the examination’s integrity is compromised at a systemic level, and Courts must weigh if tainted candidates can be segregated.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the principle that public examinations must be fair, transparent and uphold equality (Articles 14 and 16). Three key legal rules guided the outcome:

If irregularities affect all candidates or cannot be pinpointed, the entire process may be cancelled.
If irregularities are localizable to certain centres or candidates, re‑examination should be confined to that group to avoid penalizing the innocent majority.
Challenges to answer keys are admissible only upon proving a manifest, unambiguous error—not by inference or conjecture—because academic expertise resides with the examination authority’s Subject Experts.

On these foundations, the Court found that BPSC’s targeted re‑examination at BPP centre was proportionate and legally valid. Widespread cancellation would violate equality by treating unequals alike—over‑broad remedy against most examinees who complied with rules.

Impact

This decision cements the “Selective Re‑Examination Doctrine” in Indian service jurisprudence. Future competitive exams will likely see:

Authorities distinguishing between localized and systemic failures before ordering re‑tests.
Courts exercising restraint in candidates’ PILs and confining relief to provenly affected cohorts.
A push for robust Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), permanent expert oversight committees, enhanced surveillance (digital watermarking, jammers, CCTV), and grievance redressal mechanisms.
Preservation of public confidence: avoiding blanket cancellations shields compliant candidates and strengthens institutional credibility.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Normalization: A statistical tool that adjusts scores across different test versions to ensure fairness if one version is harder than another. The fear of this process triggered agitation but was never applied.
TES Bags and Jammers: Tamper‑evident sealed bags for question booklets and electronic jammers to block unauthorized communications inside exam halls.
Answer Key Challenge: Candidates may flag allegedly wrong model answers. An Expert Committee reviews objections; Courts will not themselves re‑evaluate technical answers unless the expert process yields manifestly wrong keys.
PIL Locus: Public Interest Litigation requires the petitioner to disclose credentials, registration, and a genuine public cause—not vague or politically motivated allegations.

Conclusion

Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar lays down a balanced framework: exam integrity must be protected, but remedies must be proportionate. It upholds targeted re‑tests where only a segment of examinees is compromised, avoiding collective punishment. The judgment underscores:

The need for courts to defer to examination authorities’ academic expertise.
Strict standards to prove systemic irregularity before ordering full cancellations.
A call for ongoing structural reforms—permanent expert committees, advanced security protocols, clear SOPs—to preempt future controversies and preserve fairness in public examinations.

This doctrine will guide state and central agencies in handling future selection exercises, ensuring flawed processes are rectified without undoing the efforts of honest candidates.