Jharkhand High Court
Jaya Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 June, 2024
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 2574 of 2024
Jaya Kumari .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, having its office
at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa and District -
Ranchi.
2. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administration and Rajbhasa,
having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa,
and District - Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Secretary, having
office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, Dist. - Ranchi,
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission,
having office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi.
.... .... Respondents
with
W.P.(S) No. 2654 of 2024
Siddhartha Saurabh .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, having its office
at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa and District -
Ranchi.
2. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administration and Rajbhasa,
having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa,
and District - Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Secretary, having
office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, Dist. - Ranchi,
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission,
having office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi.
.... .... Respondents
with
W.P.(S). No. 2870 of 2024
----------
Shahista Shaheen .......... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Ranchi.
4. The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi.
5. Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents. 1 with W.P.(S) No. 2876 of 2024 1. Sunil Bhagat 2. Tulsi Mahato .... .... Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa and District - Ranchi.
2. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administration and Rajbhasa, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa and District - Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, having office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, Dist. - Ranchi,
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi.
.... .... Respondents
with
W.P.(S) No. 3013 of 2024
Mukesh Kumar Das .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa and District - Ranchi.
2. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administration and Rajbhasa, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa and District - Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) through its Secretary, having office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, Dist. - Ranchi,
4. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi.
.... .... Respondents with W.P.(S) No. 3247 of 2024
1. Vivek Kumar Gupta
2. Manish Raj
3. Prabhat Kumar
4. Kapil Kumar Mahato .... .... Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
2. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Secretary, having office at Circular Road, P.O. Lalpur, P.S. - Lalpur, Dist. - Ranchi, 2
3. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having office at Circular Road, P.O. Lalpur, P.S. - Lalpur, Dist.- Ranchi.
.... .... Respondents with W.P.(S) No. 3265 of 2024
1. Dhruv Kumar
2. Sanjeev Kumar Bhaiya
3. Lalan Kumar
4. Balram Yadav
5. Roshan Kumar
6. Sunil Kumar Choudhary
7. Subodh Kumar Yadav
8. Uttam Kumar
9. Amit Kumar Bharti
10. Ritesh Ranjan
11. Lalla Siddhant
12. Bajrang Baraik
13. Ramdas Mahto
14. Kajal Kumar Dubey .... .... Petitioners Versus
1. Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, Dist. - Ranchi,
2. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi.
.... .... Respondents with W.P.(S) No. 2899 of 2024
1. Priyank Anuj
2. Nikhil Kumar Tiwary
3. Pradeep Kumar
4. Deepshikha
5. Dharmendra Kumar
6. Harendra Kumar
7. Navneet Aryan
8. Abhishek Kumar
9. Santosh Kumar Mahto
10. Amit Kumar
11. Ashish Kumar
12. Rajendra Kumar Mandal
13. Bharti Kumari
14. Abhijit Kumar
15. Shahin Parween .... .... Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand 3
2. Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) through its Secretary, Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, Dist. - Ranchi,
3. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, Dist.- Ranchi,
4. The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, Dist.-Ranchi, .... .... Respondents with W.P.(S) No. 3597 of 2024 Seema Kumari Singh .... .... Petitioner Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Gov. of Jharkhand, Officiating at Project Building, HEC Township, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
2. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, having office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S. - Lalpur, Dist. - Ranchi,
3. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having its office at Circular Road, P.O. Lalpur, P.S. - Lalpur, Dist.- Ranchi.
.... .... Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
-----------
For the Petitioner : M/s. Saurabh Shekhar, Nidhi Kumari, Amritansh Vats, Kumar Abhishek, Vikash Kumar, P.P. Mishra, S.R. Soren S.G. Lakra, M.A. Tete, J.J. Sanga, Satish Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. K.K. Singh, SC-V Mr. Krishna Prajapati, AC to SC-V Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, AC to AG Mr. Ajay Kr. Jha, AC to GP-VI Mr. Karan Shahdeo, AC to SC-II Mr. Chandan Tiwari, AC to GA-I Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, AC to GA-III Ms. Deepika Jojowar, AC to SC-VI For the JPSC : M/s. Sanjoy Piprawall, Rakesh Ranjan, Prince Kumar, Advocates Dr. A.K. Singh, Advocate
----------
02/ 20.06.2024 Heard the parties.
42. Since, the issues involved in all these writ petitions are similar and identical and as such they have been tagged together and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Petitioners have approached this Court with a common prayer for direction upon the respondent-JPSC to constitute a Committee of Expert Body in order to evaluate and determine the answer of some of the questions, as mentioned in the individual writ petitions, of the General Studies Papers-I & II which according to the petitioners are wrong inasmuch as they have verified the correct answers from the Text Book of NCERT and other documents of the Government.
Petitioners have further prayed that after re-evaluation of questions by the Expert Body, the petitioners' cases may be considered for grant of the marks for the questions answers of which has been incorrectly ascertained by the respondent-JPSC and though the petitioners have marked the correct answer, they have not been allotted the marks of the said questions, as mentioned in the individual writ petitions.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the State of Jharkhand has framed Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021 and the same was notified by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand on 08.01.2021 and published and notified in the State Gazette on 22.01.2021. Thereafter, the said rule was amended in the year 2021 as well as in the year 2023.
It is the further case of the petitioners that the various Departments of State Government have sent requisitions before the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (for short "JPSC") for starting the selection process for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Jail Superintendent, etc. and altogether 342 posts have been advertised vide Advt. No. 1/2024 inviting applications from the suitable and eligible candidates. Since the petitioners were fulfilling the requisite qualifications, they submitted their applications for consideration of their candidature for appointment against the said post. Thereafter, the 5 respondent-JPSC uploaded e-Admit Card of the candidates, whose applications were found in order, fixing the date of preliminary test on 17.03.2024. After conducting the said test, the respondent-JPSC uploaded the Model Answer Keys on the website of JPSC on 23.03.2024 for General Studies Paper-I & II and invited objections/ suggestion from the candidates who are aggrieved by the answer keys from 24.03.2024 to 30.03.2024.
Thereafter, several candidates including the present petitioners have submitted their objections/ suggestions to the Model Answer Key before the respondent-JPSC. After receipt of such objections/ suggestions, a Committee of Expert for verification/ correction of the Model Answers in light of Objections/ Suggestion of the candidates was constituted. Subsequently, on the basis of opinion of the Expert Committee, the respondent-JPSC published revised Model Answers on 13.04.2024 for information of the candidates. After publication of the revised Model Answer on 13.04.2024, since certain objections were again raised by some of the candidates on final answer key, the same was again placed before the Expert Committee for their opinion and on the basis of opinion of the said Committee, the JPSC published corrected and revised answer key for G.S. Paper-I & II on 16.04.2024 and the OMR sheets of the candidates were evaluated and thereafter, respondent-JPSC published the result of Preliminary Test on 22.04.2024. However, the names of present petitioners were not found in the said list.
5. It is the specific case of petitioners that though respondent-JPSC published revised Model Answers of the questions twice but still some errors remained there and the same requires corrections/ modifications by the Expert Body. Soon after publication of the results, the petitioners approached the respondent-JPSC raising their grievances but respondents have not shown any consideration to the same and hence, the petitioners have been constrained to knock the door of this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents are duty bound to act on the objection raised by the petitioners on the corrected 6 and revised Model Answers Key published by respondent-JPSC on 16.04.2024 by referring the same to a panel of expert as some of the answers provided in the said corrected and revised Answer Key was incorrect and not taken from authentic source or books. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argue that the objections raised by the petitioners are justifiable as they are providing ample evidence and proof in order to stand on the correctness of the answers supplied by them and the respondents are duty bound to act and constitute an Expert Committee in order to clear the doubts/ objections raised by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that since portal of respondent-JPSC was closed after publication of corrected and revised answers on 16.04.2024, hence, petitioners were not in a position to raise objection before publication of result on 22.04.2024. Learned counsel accordingly submits that a direction may be given to the respondents to constitute a Committee of Expert Body for re-evaluation of the answers in view of objections raised by the petitioners.
7. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners places heavy reliance on the following judgments:
i) Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta [(1983) 4 SCC 309];
ii) Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Saumil Garg & Ors. [(2005) 13 SCC 749];
iii) State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Prajnaparamita Samanta & Ors. [(1996) 7 SCC 106];
iv) Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [(2013) 4 SCC 690].
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that after receiving the opinion of Committee of Expert Body and acting upon such opinion/ suggestions, the respondent-JPSC evaluated the OMR Sheets of all the candidates and thereafter, published the result of preliminary test on 22.04.2024 and also published guidelines on 26.04.2024 for submissions of online application form for the mains examination by the successful candidates from 26.04.2024 to 16.05.2024. In the said press 7 communique the candidates were also informed about the tentative date of mains examination to be held from 22.06.2024 to 24.06.2024. Learned counsel further argues that from the aforesaid facts, it would be evident that after conducting the preliminary test, a Model Answers Key was published and objections were invited from the candidates. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Expert Body and based on its opinion, revised Model Answer Key was published. However, as there was still some confusion and doubts, the matter was again referred to Expert Body and after getting its opinion, corrected and revised Model Answer was published on 16.04.2024 and thereafter, evaluating the OMR Sheets of appearing candidates, the result of Preliminary Test was published in the website of respondent-JPSC on 22.04.2024. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the corrected and revised Model Answer published on 16.04.2024, they were at liberty to approach the Commission before the publication of result but they failed to do so and only when the result was published and finding themselves unsuccessful in the Preliminary Test, the petitioners have rushed to this Court challenging the correctness of the said Model Answer Key, which is not tenable in the light of plethora of judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by different High Courts. It is further submitted that if such kind of practice is adopted by the Commission in inviting objections at every time, the process of recruitment will unnecessarily be delayed and it would never be concluded.
9. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent-JPSC places heavy reliance for the following judgments:
i) Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
[(2021) 2 SCC 309];
ii) Prem Ranjan & Ors. Vs. Jharkhand State Staff Selection Commission & Ors. [L.P.A. No. 146 of 2016], pronounced on 08.11.2023.
iii) Mohit Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors. [L.P.A. No. 133 of 2021] disposed of on 16.06.2023; &
iv) Aashish Kumar Chaurasia Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [(2018) 4 JLJR 107];
810. Heard the parties.
11. For better appreciation of the case, it would be apposite to frame certain legal issues which are as follows:
i) Whether after being declared unsuccessful in the Preliminary Test, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the same and ask for re-evaluation of the answer-sheets?
ii) Whether on the request of petitioners Court can ask for constitution of an Expert Body though the same was already constituted and revised Model Answers were published?
iii) Whether the incorrect answers were for all the appearing candidates and if at all full marks was awarded for the said questions, whether cut-off marks remains unchanged or the score of some of the candidates can increase?
iv) Whether High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution can assume the power of Expert Body and decide which questions/ answers are correct and which are incorrect?
12. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Vikash Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held as under:
"14. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re- evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates (H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur [H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 286 : 3 SCEC 713]). Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the expert committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make 9 recommendations (see Basavaiah v. H.L. Ramesh [Basavaiah v. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372 :
(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 640] ).
16. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the expert committee in its judgment dated 12-3-2019 [Bhunda Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 7416]. Reliance was placed by the appellants on Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission [Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2018) 8 SCC 81 : (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 456]. In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case.
17. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalisation of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularisation. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel."
13. Taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission V. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759 it can comfortably be inferred that when there is no provision in the Rules for re-evaluation it is not proper for issuing direction for re-evaluation particular candidate's answer booklet. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it 10 may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision or improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy.
The relevant para of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission V. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759 reads as under:
"20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent no.1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law. Had it been other subjects like physics, chemistry and mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.
24. The issue of re-evaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc. AIR 1984 SC 1543, wherein this Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for re-evaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under.
..........It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be 11 incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act...
.......The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation- making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any draw-backs in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act.........".
In the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [(2018) 2 SCC 357], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation 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."
The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in case of Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [2018 (1) JBCJ 641 (HC)], relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case M.C Gupta (Dr.) V. Arun Kumar Gupta (Dr.), reported in (1979) 2 SCC 339, has also reiterated the same. Relevant 12 para of the judgment passed in case of M.C Gupta (Dr.) V. Arun Kumar Gupta (Dr.) is reproduced herein below:-
"When selection is made by the Commission aided and advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualifications in the specialist field, probing teaching research experience in technical subjects, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala fides against them. It would normally be prudent and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be."
14. Further, this Court in case of Prem Ranjan & Ors. Vs. Jharkhand State Staff Selection Commission & Ors. (LPA No. 146 of 2019) decided on 08.11.2023 has held as under:
"15. This court in the case of Aashish Kumar Chaurasia Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2018) 4 JLJR 107 has held that in the event of doubt, benefit should go to the Examination Authority rather than to the candidates. Even if some questions were asked out of syllabus, the candidates can not take benefit out of it for allotment of grace marks. Admittedly, appellants had appeared in the examination without any objection and after being declared unsuccessful, they have raised objection with respect to the standard of questions, which is not sustainable at all in the eyes of law.
16. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission V. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759 on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for respondents, it was held as under:-
"20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, 13 Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court."
17. Plea of the appellants that out of 150 questions, 26 questions ought to be rejected in view of the clause 13 of the instruction appended to the Booklet i.e., "in case of difference in any question in both versions i.e.. Hindi and English, questions will be cancelled" is fit to be rejected on the ground that the JSSC after conducting the examination, published the Model Answers for objections/suggestions by the candidates and after publication of the Model Answers, the candidates have also submitted their objections/suggestions before the JSSC and the JSSC placed the aforesaid suggestions/objections before the experts for verification and correction and on the basis of the advice and correction made by the experts on the Model Answers final revised Model Answers was published and in subject of physical education three questions were nullified. As per the decision of the JSSC full marks were given for aforesaid three questions to all candidates and corrected model answers were also published and on the basis of advice and correction made by the experts, the O.M.R. Sheets of the candidates were evaluated through scanning machine.
18. The learned counsel for the respondents had relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta V. State of Rajasthan (2021) 2 SCC 309, wherein it has been held that the court should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matter and in any event, assessment of questions by the court itself to arrive at correct answer is not permissible.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments has indicated the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India and held that in matters concerning evaluation of candidates, particularly, for the purpose of public services the scope is narrow."
15. Dealing with the similar issue, this Court recently in case of Mayank Kumar Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(S). No. 2909 of 2024] disposed of on 19.06.2024 has held as under:
14"18. Further, similar issue fell for consideration before the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Chandra Jat, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4368 (supra), wherein, the Rajasthan High Court has been pleased to dismiss the original application filed by the applicant, by which the Tribunal has directed to evaluate the OMR answer sheet, as the applicant was found to have secured cut off marks or more marks than the persons appointed, despite the fact that the applicant has incorrectly darkened the wrong bubble / circle in the column of roll number in the OMR sheet. The Rajasthan High Court relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases including in the case of G. Hemlathaa (supra) was of the view that wrong indication of roll number by darkening the wrong bubble by the respondent was apparently fatal. This judgment of the Rajasthan High Court has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.A. (C) No. 16738 of 2021."
16. It is a well-known adage that, hard cases make bad law. In case of Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 721 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"13. ... Exercise of such power of moderation is likely to create a feeling of distrust in the process of selection to public appointments which is intended to be fair and impartial. It may also result in the violation of the principle of equality and may lead to arbitrariness. The cases pointed out by the High Court are no doubt hard cases, but hard cases cannot be allowed to make bad law. In the circumstances, we lean in favour of a strict construction of the Rules and hold that the High Court had no such power under the Rules."
17. It is not in disputes that the examination is over and the results of the Preliminary Test has already been published. The petitioners have approached this Court after fully participating in the process of examination and only after being declared unsuccessful. Petitioners never raised any objection and rather, accepted and fully participated in the examination. None other than the petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for grant of grace marks.
1518. From perusal of the documents brought on records and the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter-affidavit it can safely be construed that already an Expert Committee was constituted and after receiving the opinion of Committee of Expert Body and going through its opinion/ suggestions, the respondents evaluated the OMR Sheets and thereafter published the results of Preliminary Test on 22.04.2024 and also published guidelines on 26.04.2024 for submissions of online application form for the mains examination by the successful candidates from 26.04.2024 to 16.05.2024. It further transpires that after conducting Preliminary Test, a Model Answer Key was published and objections were invited. Thereafter, the matter was referred to Expert Body and based on its opinion revised Model Answer Key was published. However, as certain confusion and doubts was still persisting, the matter was again referred to Expert Body and after getting its opinion, the corrected and revised Model Answer was published on 16.04.2024 and thereafter, after evaluating the OMR Sheets of appearing candidates, the result of Preliminary Test was published on 22.04.2024. After publication of the revised Model Answer Key, it was open for the petitioners to challenge the same and make objection if at all they were aggrieved by the same. However, not a single objection was received by the respondent-JPSC, rather, when the result was published and after finding them unsuccessful, the petitioners have rushed to this Court challenging the authenticity of the corrected and revised Answer Key.
19. Admittedly, there is no any rule for re-evaluation. Already an Expert Committee was constituted. The opinion of the Committee is not as per the sweet-will of candidates who can turn around and challenge the opinion only on the ground that they have been declared unsuccessful. No right has accrued to the unsuccessful candidates to challenge the results. It will be an unending process and the Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution neither succumb to the contentions of the petitioners as they are still 16 aggrieved nor any sympathetic consideration can be shown. Law is well settled that there is no scope of any sympathy in the eyes of law.
20. Further, the judgments relied upon by the petitioners is of no help to them as it has been clearly held in the aforesaid judgments that in absence of any Rule, High Court cannot order for re-evaluation and in the instant case, the petitioners have come for a direction for constitution of an Expert Body though the same was already constituted and based upon its opinion revised Model Answer Keys were published twice. In absence of any objection raised by the petitioner before publication of results of Preliminary Test and rushing to the Court without availing the said remedy, the writ petition itself is not maintainable and is devoid of any merit.
21. The aforesaid issues are answered accordingly.
22. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, no interference is warranted in these writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed.
23. Pending I.As., if any, stand closed.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) kunal/-
17