IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1130 of 2010 ***** 1. RAJNEESH KUMAR S/O SRI GIRIJESH NANDAN SHARMA R/O MOHALLA KHATRI TOLA, P.O.+P.S.+DISTT.- JEHANABAD. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 15, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 800001 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 2. THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 15, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 800001 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 15, JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, PATNA 800001 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 15 JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MARG, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 800001 5. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Government Pleader-XVII For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate ---------- 2. 25.1.2010. Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned Government Pleader-XVII for the State and Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus to the Bihar Public Service - 2 - Commission to produce the answer-scripts in respect of two papers, namely, Transfer of Property Act and Commercial Law. Be it noted, the petitioner had appeared in the Bihar Judicial Services Competitive Examination, 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention how he had obtained the information from the Commission under the Right to Information Act and the same would show that his answer papers have not been appositely evaluated keeping in view his brilliant career inasmuch as in many other examinations he had secured more marks. It is also urged by him that this Court should direct for production of answer-scripts and upon verification may reject the prayer. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Commission have opposed the prayer on the ground that the evaluation has been properly done and there is no provision with regard to re-evaluation. This Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13177 of 2007 (Alok Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors.) while dealing with the cases of the candidates for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the role of the - 3 - Commission and further adverting to the issues of re- evaluation has held as follows: - “As regards the re-evaluation of marks, Counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any rule which provides for re-evaluation of the marks. In the absence thereof, we are afraid this prayer can not be granted.” We respectfully concur with the said view as it has been settled in law, in the absence of any Rule or any Provision the Court ordinarily should not direct for re- evaluation. We may place on record that the questions, as admitted by the learned counsel for the parties, were descriptive in nature and hence, no purpose would be sub-served on scrutiny of the said answer-scripts, as this Court cannot replace the marks awarded in favour of the candidate. True it is, in certain cases when there is arithmetical error, the Courts have scrutinized the answer papers but the same is not the case over here. What is contended that the petitioner, a candidate with brilliance, has not been awarded proper marks. In our considered opinion, the same does not come within the context of the judicial review and, - 4 - therefore, we have no other option but to dismiss the writ petition. Pawan/- (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)