- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) advertised the Judicial Services (Competitive) Examination, 1999 on 19 April 1999. The appellant sat for the written examination held between 25 January and 31 January 2000 but failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks, obtaining only 35 marks in the General Science paper. After receiving his marksheet on 1 January 2001, he sought scrutiny of that paper. On 18 July 2001, BPSC informed him that scrutiny revealed no error.
Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking re-evaluation of his General Science answer-book. A learned Single Judge directed a fresh evaluation by two teachers of Patna Science College; they awarded 63 marks. Relying on this, the Single Judge ordered BPSC to reconsider the appellant’s result by treating his General Science score as 63.
BPSC’s letters patent appeal was allowed by a Division Bench on 16 April 2003, setting aside the Single Judge’s decision. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by special leave, challenging the Division Bench’s judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in the absence of any rule permitting re-evaluation, a court can direct re-evaluation of an answer-book in a competitive examination conducted by BPSC.
- Whether the procedure adopted by the Single Judge for re-evaluation—handing a photocopy of the answer-book to counsel and unidentified teachers without model answers—could be sustained.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- He had secured high marks in all other subjects and had correctly answered the General Science questions; therefore, the mark of 35 was unjustified.
- Re-evaluation was necessary to rectify the alleged under-assessment and protect his merit position.
BPSC’s Arguments
- The examination rules allow only “scrutiny” (verification of totalling and completeness), not re-evaluation; hence no candidate has a right to seek re-evaluation.
- BPSC uses a centralised evaluation system with model answers prepared by a Head Examiner to ensure uniformity; ad-hoc re-evaluation would undermine this standard.
- Granting re-evaluation would create a floodgate of similar requests, delaying declaration of results and hampering the filling of vacancies.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27; AIR 1984 SC 1543 | An examinee has no right to obtain re-evaluation of answer-books in the absence of an express rule; courts should not order re-evaluation merely on request. | The Court relied on this decision to hold that, because BPSC rules provide only for scrutiny, the Single Judge’s direction for re-evaluation was impermissible. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that BPSC rules expressly permit only scrutiny—limited to checking whether all answers were assessed and whether marks were correctly totalled and transcribed. As no provision authorises re-evaluation, the appellant possessed no legal right to demand it. Relying on the Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth precedent, the Court held that judicial directions for re-evaluation cannot be issued absent such a rule.
The Court further observed that the Single Judge’s method—handing a photocopy of the answer-book to counsel, who in turn procured an assessment by two unnamed teachers without the benefit of the official model answers—did not assure uniform standards necessary in a competitive examination. Such a process risked inconsistency and unfairness. Moreover, entertaining individual re-evaluation requests would delay results and could create inequities if re-evaluation produced lower marks for some candidates.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the Division Bench correctly reversed the Single Judge’s order, and no ground existed to interfere with that decision.
Holding and Implications
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s judgment, restoring the BPSC’s original assessment and refusing re-evaluation.
Implications: The decision reiterates that, unless examination rules explicitly permit re-evaluation, courts will not compel it. It preserves the integrity and timely completion of competitive examinations by preventing ad-hoc judicial interference. No new legal precedent was created; rather, existing principles were reaffirmed.
G.P Mathur, J. Leave granted.
2. The writ petitioner has preferred this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated 16-4-2003 of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court by which the letters patent appeal preferred by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) was allowed and the judgment and order dated 11-9-2001 of a learned Single Judge whereby a direction was given to the Commission to reconsider the case of the appellant after treating his marks in the General Science paper as 63 was set aside.
3. For holding the Judicial Services (Competitive) Examination, 1999, the Commission issued an advertisement on 19-4-1999. The appellant appeared in the written examination which was held from 25-1-2000 to 31-1-2000. After the viva voce examination, the final result was declared on 6-8-2000. The appellant did not qualify in the written examination and was not called for interview. A copy of the marksheet was sent to him on 1-1-2001. He applied for scrutiny of his marks in General Science paper wherein he had secured 35 marks. The Commission found that there was no mistake and, accordingly, an intimation to that effect was sent to him on 18-7-2001. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a writ petition in the High Court wherein the main prayer made was that a direction be issued to the Commission to re-evaluate his General Science paper. It was averred in the writ petition that he had secured very good marks in all other papers, namely, General Hindi, General Knowledge, Law of Evidence & Procedure, Transfer of Property and Personal Law, etc. and had also answered the questions in General Science paper correctly and, therefore, he should have been awarded much higher marks in the said paper.
4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Commission before the learned Single Judge it was pleaded that in the rules, there was only a provision for scrutiny and there was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer-books. The appellant had applied for scrutiny of his marks in General Science paper which was done and no mistake had been found and the marks remained the same, namely, 35. It was further pleaded that a centralised mode of evaluation is adopted by the Commission wherein examiners approved and selected by the Commission are required to examine the answer-books under the guidance of a Head Examiner. In order to avoid vagaries of wide difference in standard in awarding marks, the Bihar Public Service Commission follows the pattern of the Union Public Service Commission wherein the Head Examiner with the assistance of other examiners prepares a model answer and this is used as guidance by all other examiners while examining the answer-books, and by this process a uniform standard in awarding marks is maintained. It was also submitted that in absence of any provision in the rules for re-evaluation of the answer-books, the said exercise cannot be done and any direction for re-evaluation will open a floodgate for other candidates to come out with similar plea which will ultimately cause a great delay in declaring the final result.
5. The learned Single Judge issued a direction to the Commission to produce the answer-book of the appellant of General Science paper after he had deposited an amount of Rs 5000 by way of security. The answer-book was shown to the Standing Counsel for Patna University, who apparently had science background, and, he was of the opinion that the appellant deserved more marks. The learned Single Judge then directed the Standing Counsel for Patna University to have the answer-book re-evaluated by expert teachers through the Principal, Science College, Patna. A photocopy of the answer-book (after blacking out the marks awarded by the examiner of the Commission) was handed over to the said counsel. After fresh evaluation of the answer-book by two experts viz. a Physics teacher and a Biology teacher of Patna Science College, the answer-book was returned to the Court by the counsel. In that fresh evaluation, the appellant was awarded 63 marks as against 35 marks which had been awarded to him by the examiner of the Commission. The writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the Commission to reconsider the case of the appellant treating his marks in General Science paper as 63.
6. The Commission preferred a letters patent appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Single Judge which was allowed by the Division Bench by the impugned judgment and order dated 16-4-2003 and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside.
7. We have heard the appellant (writ petitioner) in person and learned counsel for the respondents at considerable length. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper. 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. This question was examined in considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27, AIR 1984 SC 1543. In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an application made to that effect by a candidate. Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed to inspect the answer-books and the Board be directed to conduct re-evaluation of such of the answer-books as the petitioners may demand after inspection. The High Court held that the rule providing for verification of marks gave an implied power to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment of the High Court was set aside and it was held that in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re-evaluated, no such direction can be issued. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer-books re-evaluated. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated.
8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re-evaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided.
9. Even otherwise, the manner in which the learned Single Judge had the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper re-evaluated cannot be justified. The answer-book was not sent directly by the Court either to the Registrar of Patna University or to the Principal of Science College. A photocopy of the answer-book was handed over to the Standing Counsel for Patna University who returned the same to the Court after some time and a statement was made to the effect that the same had been examined by two teachers of Patna Science College. The names of the teachers were not even disclosed to the Court. The examination in question is a competitive examination where the comparative merit of a candidate has to be judged. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that a uniform standard is applied in examining the answer-books of all the candidates. It is the specific case of the Commission that in order to achieve such an objective, a centralised system of evaluation of answer-books is adopted wherein different examiners examine the answer-books on the basis of model answers prepared by the Head Examiner with the assistance of other examiners. It was pleaded in the letters patent appeal preferred by the Commission and which fact has not been disputed that the model answer was not supplied to the two teachers of Patna Science College. There can be a variation of standard in awarding marks by different examiners. The manner in which the answer-books were got evaluated, the marks awarded therein cannot be treated as sacrosanct and consequently, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the Commission to treat the marks of the appellant in General Science paper as 63 cannot be justified.
10. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court is correct and calls for no interference.
11. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert