IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10867 of 2011
======================================================
Purshottam Kumar, son of Shri Amrendra Singh, resident of village
Rawaich, Bakhtiarpur, Bakhtiyarpur, District Patna.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, 15 Bailey
Road, Patna, 800001.
3. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Bailey Road Patna,
800001.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Adv.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Rajesh Kr.Verma SC 27
For the B.P.S.C. : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD
VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
3 21-07-2011 The petitioner, a candidate for appointment to the Higher
Judicial service, has challenged the result of the Preliminary
Examination published by the Bihar State Public Service
Commission on the ground that the questions the petitioner had
answered correctly were marked wrong on account of wrong
answer key submitted by the paper setters. Two of the questions,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10867 of 2011 (3) dt.21-07-2011
2
question nos. 46 and 52, in the subject of General Studies Booklet
Series-C were correctly answered by the petitioner as can be
ascertained from the standard text book. However, the answers
given in the answer key were wrong, thereby the petitioner has lost
two marks pushing him below the cut off marks. Had those
questions been examined correctly, the petitioner would have
obtained two more mark and he would have been considered
eligible to take the competitive examination.
The examination in question had been conducted by the
Bihar Public Service Commission for recruitment and selection for
the posts in Subordinate Judicial Service of the State of Bihar.
While exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution, this Court will not venture to examine each answer
paper nor would this Court examine the correctness of the answer
key given by the Expert. If we intend to interfere, we must direct
to alter the answer key and then to re-examine each answer sheet.
This is evidently beyond the jurisdiction of this Court more
particularly in view of the belated challenge in the present writ
petition.
For the aforesaid reasons the petition is dismissed in limine.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
B Tiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)