Safiya Malik

The Patna High Court Division Bench has setaside a Single Judge’s directive requiring the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) to re-evaluate specific questions in the OMR test for the recruitment of Assistant Professors (Physics). The Bench held that re-evaluation was not supported by statutory provisions or recruitment rules and permitted the BPSC to proceed with the selection process based on the final answer key.

The case arose from a recruitment process initiated under Advertisement No. 63/2020 by the BPSC for Assistant Professors in government engineering colleges. The process involved an OMR test worth 40 marks, academic record and research performance evaluation worth 20 marks, a weightage of 25 marks for contract-based Assistant Professors, and an interview carrying 15 marks. Candidates were required to secure a minimum qualifying score in the OMR test to proceed to the interview stage.

The petitioner, a candidate who did not qualify for the interview stage, filed a writ petition alleging errors in the final answer key. The BPSC had undertaken a series of reviews for the provisional answer key, involving expert committees, and published a revised final answer key after four iterations. Despite these revisions, the petitioner claimed that inaccuracies persisted and sought a re-evaluation of specific questions by a newly constituted committee.

The Single Judge allowed the petition and directed the formation of a new expert committee comprising members from IIT Patna and NIT Patna to re-evaluate the petitioner’s answers. The directive included a provision for determining the petitioner’s eligibility for the interview based on revised scores. The BPSC challenged this directive in a Letters Patent Appeal, asserting that the recruitment rules did not provide for re-evaluation and that the repeated review process by expert committees ensured fairness.

The petitioner contended that the discrepancies in the answer key undermined the merit-based selection process. It was argued that a fresh review by an independent committee was necessary to safeguard fairness and accuracy in the evaluation.

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Nani Tagia, examined the appeal and addressed the permissibility of the Single Judge’s directive. The court noted that the governing rules and recruitment advertisement did not provide for re-evaluation. It stated, “Re-evaluation or scrutiny of answer sheets is permissible only when explicitly provided by the applicable rules or regulations.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018), the court recorded that the judiciary should avoid interfering in academic matters unless a material error is clearly demonstrated. It stated, “Courts lack the expertise to adjudicate on academic matters and should presume the correctness of answer keys prepared by experts.”

The Bench observed that the BPSC had conducted a rigorous review process, involving multiple expert committees, to address objections raised by candidates. It recorded, “The Commission’s process of reviewing the provisional answer key on four occasions demonstrates diligence and a commitment to procedural fairness.”

The court observed that differences in expert opinions are inevitable but held that such differences do not constitute grounds for further intervention. It stated, “Variations in expert opinions are not uncommon, and the court’s role is limited to ensuring that the process was conducted fairly.”

The Bench concluded that the directive for re-evaluation by a newly constituted committee lacked statutory backing and was contrary to the principles of fairness in competitive examinations. It stated, “Re-evaluation of a single candidate’s answer paper, without statutory provision or uniform application, is impermissible in a merit-based recruitment process.”

The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s directive and allowed the BPSC to proceed with the recruitment process based on the final answer key. It stated, “The Commission may continue the selection process as per the procedures already followed.” All interim applications related to the case were dismissed.

Case Title: Bihar Public Service Commission v. Dr. Eena Bahan & Ors
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 704 of 2024 in CWJC No. 5217 of 2023
Bench: Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice Nani Tagia

[Read/Download order]