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. B Tiwary/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)