Appeal against writ dismissal challenging model answer key re-evaluation for Enforcement Sub Inspector post. Court held judicial review cannot second-guess expert committee decisions on question framing or answer keys once finalized.
Letters Patent Appeal dismissed; appeal against dismissal of writ application rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.735 of 2014
Arising out of
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 355 of 2013
Along with
Interlocutory Application No.3740 of 2014
===========================================================
.... .... Writ petitioners- Appellant/s
Versus
Patna High Court LPA No.735 of 2014 dt.20-10-2016
2/5
Mahadeva, Siwan- 841226.
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA)
Date: 20-10-2016
Re.: Interlocutory Application No.3740 of 2014
The application is for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.
that sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Consequently, we condone the delay in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.
Re.: Letters Patent Appeal No.735 of 2014
The present Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 13th December, 2013 in CWJC No.355 of 2013 whereby the claim of the appellants to
Patna High Court LPA No.735 of 2014 dt.20-10-2016
3/5
re-evaluate objective type questions remained unsuccessful.
Patna High Court LPA No.735 of 2014 dt.20-10-2016
4/5
Court in L.P.A. No.98 of 2013 (Lokpal and others v. Bihar Staff Selection Commission and others) decided on 19th June, 2013. It was held that the judgment with regard to wrong questions and model answer key after being reviewed by the Committee of expert cannot be made subject to matter of judicial review again.
28. From the pleadings on record, it is evident that the Appointment and Selection Committee, upon having received various representations on incorrect framing of questions and incorrect model answers, decided to delete two questions from the scope of evaluation and alter eight model answers for the purpose of correct evaluation of respective answer-sheets.
29. The question, which we are required to answer, in the present proceedings, in view of rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, is as to whether, while exercising power of judicial review in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court should sit over the decision of the Selection and Appointment Committee on the aspects of framing of questions and preparation of model answers.
30. The answer to the question posed above is necessary in order to deal with the grievance of the petitioners of alleged violation of their right of fair selection in the competitive examination in question. To put it a little differently, the question is as to whether the writ petitioners have been able to make out a case by making specific pleading that impugned action of wrong framing of questions/model answers had, in fact, adversely affected their right in any manner? In order to answer this question, it has to be kept in mind that the petitioners knew the questions.
Patna High Court LPA No.735 of 2014 dt.20-10-2016
5/5
It is not their case that the question papers were not in their possession. They also knew as to what answers they had given to respective questions.”
(Hemant Gupta, J.)
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
Sunil/-
AFR/NAFR N. A. F.R. CAV DATE N. A. Uploading Date 26.10.2016 Transmission Date
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise judicial review under Article 226 to re-evaluate the correctness of objective type questions and model answer key finalized by an expert committee?
Whether specific pleaders regarding adversely affected rights due to wrong framing of questions are required when candidates knew the question papers?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Himachal Pradesh Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and anotherFollowed¶55
Himachal Pradesh Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and another, (2010) 6 SCC 759 · Who else cites this
Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and othersFollowed¶55
Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2013) 4 SCC 690 · Who else cites this
Lokpal and others v. Bihar Staff Selection Commission and othersFollowed¶55
L.P.A. No.98 of 2013 (Lokpal and others v. Bihar Staff Selection Commission and others)
Ravindra Kumar Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature at PatnaExplained¶59
Ravindra Kumar Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature at Patna, 2016 (1) PLJR 865
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjeet Kumar Roy
Arun Kumar
Bihar Staff Selection Commission
Union of India
Suman Kumar Sinha
Pawan Kumar
Hemant Gupta
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
