BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. versus ARUN KUMAR & ORS.
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 181, Supreme Court of India, 2020
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Arguments
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
181
BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS.
v.
ARUN KUMAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2414-2416 of 2020)
MAY 06, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Service Law – Graduate Level Combined Examination-2010
– The Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC) issued an
advertisement to 1569 vacancies in Class III posts, in various
departments of the State – The examinations were conducted – The
successful candidates of the preliminary examination appeared for
the main examinations – There were objections to some of the model
answers to the main examination – The BSSC constituted a expert
Committee to examine the objections; this report suggested changes
with respect to 13 questions – The acceptance of the report meant
consequential revision of the results – Writ petitions – The Single
Judge of the High Court directed inclusion of 915 candidates as
result of Expert Committee report and directed BSSC to re-evaluate
the answer sheets of the candidates after deleting four other
questions – The Division Bench of High Court further interfered
with the judgment of the Single Judge by revising four more questions
– Thereafter, the Supreme Court directed BSSC to appoint an Expert
Committee in order to determine the correct answers to the questions
appended – The report was submitted before the Supreme Court,
the BSSC contended that complying the order of the Division Bench
of the High Court would result in administrative chaos as the exercise
would drastically alter
the final result – Held: Given the clear
declaration of law in the various Supreme Court judgments, the
unilateral exercise of re-valuation undertaken by the High Court
(both by the Single Judge and the Division Bench) has contributed
to the chaos – No rule or regulation was shown by any party during
the hearing which justified the approach that was adopted – The
BSSC acted correctly in the first instance in referring the answers
to a panel of experts – If there were justifiable doubts about
recommendations of that panel, the least that should have been done,
was to require the BSSC to refer the disputed questions to another
expert panel – That was not done; The ‘corrections’ indicated by
181
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 181
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
the Single Judge were accepted by the BSSC; several candidates
who made it to the select list freshly drawn up pursuant to his
directions, were appointed – The Division Bench, thereafter
undertook the entire exercise afresh and compounded the matter
further by not referring the questions to any panel of experts – The
High Court interference has not resulted in any finality and the
entire selection process is under uncertainty – The committee of
experts appointed by the Supreme Court has made its
recommendations and the exercise indicates that previous re-
evaluations by the High Court were not correct and the said
recommendations are accepted – The BSSC is directed to evaluate
and publish results afresh, in light of the recommendations and
reports of the experts constituted by the Supreme Court and not to
disturb appointments made previously pursuant to directions of the
Single Judge of the High Court – In case the number of selected
candidates exceeds the vacancies available, the State would
accommodate the excess numbers in the relevant cadres as against
the future vacancies – Accordingly, judgment of the Single Judge
and Division Bench of the High Court set aside.
Ran Vijay Singh v. State of UP  (2018) 2 SCC 357 :
[2017] 12 SCR 95; Pramod Kumar Srivastava v.
Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna &
Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 714 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 372;
Central Board of Secondary Education Through
Secretary, All
India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance
Examination & Ors. v. Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors
(2014) 14 SCC 523 : [2011] 10 SCR 286 – relied on.
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education and Another v. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors. (1984) 4 SCC 27 : [1985]
1 SCR 29; Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas
Ranjan Panda (2004) 13 SCC 383; Himachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr
(2010) 6 SCC 759 : [2010] 7 SCR 189; Gangadhara
Palo v. Revenue Divisional Officer & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC
602 : [2011] 3 SCR 746; Pranav Verma v. Registrar
General of High Court of Punjab & Haryana (2019)
SCC OnLine SC 1610 – referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
183
Manoj Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2012 (1) PLJR
542 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 12 SCR 95
relied on
Para 18
[1985] 1 SCR 29
referred to
Para 20
[2004] 3 Suppl.  SCR 372
relied on
Para 20
(2004) 13 SCC 383
referred to
Para 20
[2010] 7 SCR 189
referred to
Para 20
[2011] 3 SCR 746
referred to
Para 20
[2011] 10 SCR 286
relied on
Para 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2414-
16 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.06.2015 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. Nos. 1170/2013, 1174/2013 & 1352/
2013.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 2420-2421 and 2424 of 2020
Vijay Hansaria, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Kavin Gulati, Sr. Advs.,
Rakesh Singh, Arun K. Sinha, Vikas Singh Jangra, Amit Kumar Pathak,
Abhinav Bajaj, Prasanna Mohan, Kunal Verma, Anand Shankar Jha,
Arpit Gupta, Md. Ali, Priyanshi Agarwal, Arjun Garg, Saket Singh,
Mrs. Niranjana Singh, Smarhar Singh, Ashutosh Thakur, Rana Prashant,
Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Manju Singh, Tarun Verma, Ms. Kamakshi
S. Mehlwal, Sanveer Mehlwal, Vijay Kumar, Abdul Gaffar, Gopal Singh,
and Srikaanth S., Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Order of the Court was passed by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Special leave granted. The parties were heard, with consent of
their counsel.
2. These appeals are directed against a common judgment in LPA
No. 1200/2013 (in CWJC No. 3640/2013), LPA No. 1170/2013 (in CWJC
BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. v.
ARUN KUMAR & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
No. 3740/2013), LPA No.  1174/2013 (in CWJC No. 4265/2013) and
LPA No. 1352/2013 in CWJC No. 3640/2013) of the Patna High Court,
dated 24.06.2015.
3. One set of appeals (arising from SLP(C) Nos. 23202-23204/
2015) has been preferred by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission
(hereafter “BSSC”) and the other set (referred to as “the aggrieved
party appellants”) by several aggrieved parties, who were appellants
before the Division Bench of the High Court, in four intra-court appeals,
which had questioned the judgment and order of a learned single judge.
The single judge set aside the results of the main examination, with
consequential directions to the BSSC to prepare fresh results of the
Graduate Level Combined Examination-2010, in accordance with the
directions of the Court in relation to deletion/modification of questions
and answers as stipulated in the judgment. The aggrieved party appellants
were not party to the writ proceedings, but had been declared selected
in terms of the results first published, and subsequently were shown as
not qualified under the revised results pursuant to the directions of the
Court by the learned single judge. Three appeals to the Division Bench
were by candidates who were writ petitioners and had impugned the
judgment of the single judge in not granting them full relief in respect of
all questions that were challenged. These parties were not selected in
the final results declared.
4. The
brief facts of the case are that on 18.06.2010, the BSSC
issued an advertisement calling for applications for selection of candidates
to 1569 vacancies in Class III posts, in various departments of the
Government of Bihar. Examinations were conducted; on 12.04.2012,
results of the preliminary examination were declared; this became the
subject matter of challenge before the Patna High Court. The High Court,
after calling for evaluation of the questions and the results published by
experts, directed fresh declaration of results. Resultantly, the fresh
declaration of results was made on 29.12.2012. 27,289 candidates
qualified in the examination. Meanwhile the number of vacancies
increased to 3285 (from the original number of 1569). On 27.10.2013,
the main written examination (for selection), as part of the second phase,
was held; those who had been declared successful in the preliminary
examination were allowed to compete. On 28.01.2013, the model answers
to the main examinations were published; the BSSC elicited comments
and objections to the model answers.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
185
5. The BSSC constituted a committee of experts to examine the
objections; their report suggested changes with respect to 13 questions.
The acceptance of the report meant consequential revision of the result.
This led to the filing of five writ petitions, before the Patna High Court.
The results declared by the BSSC were impugned on diverse grounds,
including that the original number of vacancies could not have been
increased; that the increase in the number of candidates was arbitrary
and that the final results were based on answers to various questions,
which were wrong.
6. The single judge, after considering the contentions of the parties
on merits, held that the increase in the number of vacancies to be
considered for selection and appointment beyond the initially advertised
number, was valid and in consonance with the law declared by this court;
it was further held that the increase in the number of candidates allowed
to compete for the post (i.e. 27,289 instead of the original 16,425 declared
successful in the preliminary test) was justified, despite that number
exceeding the ratio (of consideration of five candidates for one post)
because of the revision in the results. The change in the result as a
consequence of the expert committee’s report adversely impacted 915
candidates who had been previously declared successful in the result of
the preliminary test declared on 12.04.2012. By an order of the Patna
High Court in Manoj Kumar v. State of Bihar
& Ors.1, it was held that
these candidates should not be disturbed by the change in result. The
BSSC, therefore, retained these 915 candidates on the list of successful
candidates. Further, the change in answers caused the inclusion of several
others who now obtained the same marks as these 915 candidates. This
resultant increase in the number of successful candidates from 16,425
to 27,289 was held to be permissible by the single judge. After examining
the merits of the answers accepted by the BSSC, the single judge was
of the opinion that question numbers 82, 147, 148 and 149 were incorrect;
the writ petitions were allowed, with a direction to BSSC to re-evaluate
the answer sheets of the candidates after deleting the said four questions.
7. Two appeals were preferred against that decision of the single
judge. It was contended that the BSSC had wrongly assessed question
nos. 61, 62, 67, 82, 98, 107, 111, 124, 125, 148 and 149. By the impugned
judgment, the Division Bench partly allowed the appeals. The operative
directions in the impugned judgment are extracted below:
BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. v.
ARUN KUMAR & ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
1 2012 (1) PLJR 542
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
“22. Thus, the only change we find is with regard to question
No. 69 where the correct answer is option (A). In respect of
question No. 98, the correct answer is option (D). The correct
answer to question No. 107 is not available and has to be
deleted. In respect of question No. 111, we hold that it should
not be deleted and the correct answer is option (C).
23. Thus, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment of the
learned Single Judge only to the extent of these four questions
in the manner indicated hereinabove.
24. Thus, the inevitable result would be, in order to ensure
fairness of procedure of selection, the results which were
revised and published pursuant to orders of the learned Single
Judge would call for a further revision in respect of the four
questions as noted in the preceding paragraphs but it would
not follow that as per the fresh revised results of persons who
had already been selected and appointed and have been
working but who do not make the mark this time would be
disqualified and dismissed. We hold that this would be highly
iniquitous inasmuch as they are not guilty of any fraud,
malpractice but are mere victims of mistake committed not by
them. We have already noted judgments of the Apex Court in
the cased Rajesh Kumar (supra) and Vikash Pratap Singh
(supra) in these regards but again that does not end the matter.
By change of answers of these four questions, as noted above,
there may be
some persons, who are now found to have made
to the final merit list but, were not selected earlier leaving
them out would be injustice. There would not be many such
persons.
25. Having considered the matter, we would accordingly order
that such persons who now come into the merit list would
have to be adjusted, if vacancies were there were (sic) or
there are vacancies available in cadre, for which examination
were held. Their inter se seniority in the cadre to which they
are allotted would be determined by inter se merit position,
irrespective of their date of appointment. We order
accordingly. With these observations and directions, these
Letter Patent Appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
187
8. The appellants in civil appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 29764-
65/2015 are aggrieved by the impugned judgment; their complaint is that
the Division Bench confined the relief in respect of only four wrong
answers; according to them, there were other defective questions or
wrong answers: they argue that question nos. 61, 62, 67, 82, 98, 107, 111,
124, 125, 148 and 149 should be deleted altogether (as against the
interference with respect to four question nos., i.e. 69, 98, 107 and 111).
The appellants in civil appeals arising out of SLP(C) 30109/2016, on the
other hand, urge that answers to question nos. 61, 82, 119, 124, 125 and
135 have to be corrected, and the revised merit list should be published
on the basis of such corrected result. The BSSC, in its appeal arising out
of SLP(C) Nos. 23202-04/2015, on the other hand, urges that after the
judgment of the learned single judge, appointments were made since the
grievance of the writ petitioners had been substantially mitigated.  It
was in the context of appeals preferred by private respondents (some of
whom are before this Court) who found that their names were out of
zone of consideration, that the Division Bench delivered the impugned
judgment.
9. It is submitted that the directions in the impugned judgment,
which include those requiring the accommodation of candidates who
were to come in the merit list as against the vacancies available in the
cadre without disturbing appointments already made,
is violative of well-
established and settled principles of service law. It is highlighted that if
the impugned directions are to be complied with, there would be several
complications inasmuch as the recommendations for 3285 vacancies
were against 21 different categories of posts many of which require
additional qualifications. This, it is urged would also include creation of
supernumerary post.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court had
issued notice on 30.10.2015. In the meanwhile, on 28.09.2015 the BSSC
was asked to work out the judgment in terms of the directions contained
to show the likely results.
11. The Court had on 25.09.2019 passed the following order:
“Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties, we
are of the view that the Bihar Public Service Commission
should appoint an Expert Committee consisting of three
members in order to determine what is the correct answer to
BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. v.
ARUN KUMAR & ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
the questions which are appended as part of this order. The
Expert Committee to be appointed within a period of two weeks
from today.  The Expert Committee will then submit its report
in a sealed cover to this Court within a period of four weeks
from the date on which the Committee is formed.
The Expert Committee is left with the discretion to co-opt
persons of their choice in assisting them.
Representations of parties to be submitted within a period of
two weeks from today so that the Committee may consider
them as and when it is constituted.
List after six weeks.”
12. The questions which were referred to the Committee of
Experts, extracted in a Tabular Form as part of the order of 25.09.2019
is set out below:
S.No.
QUESTIONS WITH FOUR OPTIONS
1.
61. The Primary Product of Photosynthesis is:
(A) Citric Acid               (B) Glucose                (C) Starch        (D) Maltose 
2.
69. Which technique has been possible only after development of recombinant DNA 
Technology: 
(A) DNA Fingerprinting  (B) Monoclonal antibody production  (C) Fermentation   (D) 
Vaccination 
3.
82. The largest beach in India is in
(A)  Kerala               (B) Goa             (C) Tamil Nadu                 (D) West Bengal 
4.
98.  2 x (3+4) is equal to:
(A)  (3 x 4) +2              (B) (2 x 4) + 3            (C) (3 x 2) + 4              (D) (2 x 3) + ( 2 x 4) 
5.
107. Which term comes next in the series YEB, WFD, UHG, SKL?
(A) QGL
(B) TOL           (C) QNL          (D) QOL 
6.
111. If dust is called air, air is called fire, fire is called water, water is called colour, colour is 
called rain and rain is called dust, then where do fish live? 
(A)  Fire               (B) Water           (C) Colour           (D)   Dust 
7.
119. Arrange in the logical sequence 1) Butterfly   2) Cocoon   3) Egg    4) Worm
(A) 1,3,4,2   (B) 1,4,3,2    (C) 2,4,1,3   (D) 3,4,2,1 
8.
124.  Given the statements  - “No fruit is tree.  All flowers are trees”, which one of the 
following is correct? 
(A) No fruit is flower    (B) Some trees are flowers   (C) All flowers are fruits   (D) None of 
these
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
189
BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. v.
ARUN KUMAR & ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
9. 
125. Given the statements: All windows are doors and no door is wall. 
(A) No window is wall   (B) No wall is door     (C) Some windows are walls   (D) None of 
these. 
10.
135. How many minimum steps are necessary to change the word ‘SLEEP’ 
into ‘DREAM’? 
You have to change one letter at a time and all changes should result in a meaningful word. 
(A) 5             (B) 4              (C) 6                (D) 7
13. The report of the Committee of four Experts - Dr. S.K.
Srivastava, Professor (Retired), PG Deptt. of Zoology, Patna University,
Patna & Former Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna; Dr. L.N.
Ram, Professor (Retired) PG Deptt. of Geography, Patna University,
Patna & Former Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna; Dr. Binod
Kumar Pandey, Prof. & Head, PG Deptt. of Statistics, Patna University,
Patna and Dr. Balgangadhar Prasad, Professor (Retired), PG Deptt. of
Mathematics, Patna University, Patna & Co-opted Member, was set
out in the common report dated 04.11.2019.  The summary of the extract
(of the answers to the questions) is set out below:
“The answer to the question by the Expert Committee against
the order dated 25.09.2019 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the SLP (C) No. 23202-23204/2015 with SLP (C) No. 29764-29765/
2015, SLP  (C) No. 30109/2016 is below:
Srl. No.
Q. No.
Correct Answer
1.
61
B
2.
69
A
3.
82
C
4.
98
D
5.
107             No option
is correct
6.
111
D
7.
119
D
8.
124
A
9.
125        Two options are correct
10.
135
C
The explanation is given on separate pages.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
14. The report also contains detailed reasoning in justification of
the answers, determined to be correct according to the experts. The
detailed reasoning too is in a common document, prepared unanimously
by four experts.
15.  It is argued on behalf of the BSSC that the process of selection
in the present case is very complex as altogether 3285 vacancies in 21
posts requiring different qualifications under various departments were
notified, and recommendations had been sent by the commission long
ago in the year 2013, in compliance with the judgment passed in the writ
petition. The recommendations were made on the basis of merit cum
choice and suitability of a candidate for a particular post.
16. It is thus argued that any modification in the result, in compliance
with the order passed in the impugned judgment or in terms of the report
of the committee, would result in administrative chaos as well as in “a
tsunami of litigation”. The exercise would drastically alter the final
result, and not only a large number of candidates recommended, selected
and appointed would be ousted but it would also result in alteration in
service and inter-se seniority position of a large number of candidates
already appointed and working for the past six years. It is stated that
even confining the result to the candidates who were in litigation before
the High Court or this court will not help, as candidates who had not
claimed revision
of result will, on the principles of parity, claim appointment
and those already appointed will claim change in services as per their
revised merit position and /or inter-se seniority in the services.
17. It is submitted that initially this court by order dated 28.09.2015
directed BSSC to work out the impugned judgment and show the likely
result therein. Pursuant to that order, the BSSC filed additional affidavits
dated 24.09.2015 and 28.10.2015. After considering them, this court by
its order dated 31.10.2015 issued notice and stayed the impugned
judgment. The effect of change of result could well be anticipated from
the following data indicated in the two additional affidavits (with regard
to only four questions):
(a) 249 candidates will have to be removed from service and
similar number of candidates will be eligible for appointment.
(b) If 249 candidates are to be retained, as directed by the High
Court, then to give appointment to 249 new candidates and to maintain
reservation roster, 688 additional posts will be required.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
191
(c) It is submitted that this will further result in change of posts/
services of 1162 candidates already appointed and if they have to be
retained at their old posts, then a total of 3362 posts will be required.
18. It is argued that now if the recommendation of the committee
of experts is implemented, then around 3000 to 6000 additional posts, in
addition to those already advertised, would be required to be created to
absorb the effect of alteration of result. It is urged that to avoid litigation
and administrative chaos, in the light of the judgment of this court in Ran
Vijay Singh vs State of UP2, it may be directed that the result published,
recommendation sent and appointments made on the basis of the judgment
of the learned single judge should not be interfered with. In Ran Vijay
Singh (supra), this court held that:
 “31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion
does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing
revaluation 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.”
19. The tabular comparative statement for the answers according
to the experts appointed under directions of this court, and the relative
claim of the candidates, is extracted below:
Tabular comparative statement of the results of disputed
questions
S.No. Questions which are in issue
BSSC’s 
opinion
SJ
DB
SC 
experts
Candidates 
claim
1. 
61. The primary product of 
Photosynthesis is 
(A) Citric Acid (B) Glucose 
(C)Starch (D) Maltose 
(B) 
(B) 
(Pg. 
255) 
(B) 
(Pg.4
2) 
(B) 
(C) 
2. 
69. Which technique has been 
possible only after development of 
recombinant DNA technology: 
(A) DNA Fingerprinting (B) 
Monoclonal antibody production 
(C)Fermentation (D) Vaccination
(D) 
(D) 
(Pg. 
190) 
(A) 
(Pg. 
43) 
(A) 
(A) 
BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. v.
ARUN KUMAR & ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
2 (2018) 2 SCC 357
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
192
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
It is evident that the experts appointed by this court have
recommended that two questions (at S. Nos. 5 and 9) should be deleted
for the purpose of evaluation, because of defective or ambiguous (i.e.
more than one) answers. It is a matter of record that one set of petitioners
approached the High Court, complaining of arbitrariness in the declaration
of results, as a consequence of defective evaluation. Before they had
approached the court, the BSSC had undertaken the exercise of submitting
the results to expert evaluation, and then revised the key answers, deleting
(from consideration) certain questions. The exercise was undertaken
again by the BSSC, which complied with the single judge’s directions.
As a result of that exercise, several candidates were appointed. The
Division bench, regrettably, in the context of appeals by candidates who
had been originally selected, who questioned the decision of the board to
have the re-evaluation, questioned the revised merit list. Others who
had approached the Division Bench were those who were excluded
from selection, after the single judge’s decision.
3.
82. The largest beach in India is in
(A) Kerala (B) Goa (C)Tamil Nadu (D) West Bengal 
Delete
Delete 
(Pg. 
248)
Delete
(Pg.44
)
(C)
(C)
4. 
98. 2 x (3+4) is equal to: 
(A) (3x4)+2 (B) (2x4)+3 
(C)(3x2)+4 (D) (2x3)+(2x4)
(A&D) (A&D) 
(Pg.190 
& 242)
(D) 
(Pg.45
)
(D) 
(A &D)
5. 
107. Which term comes next in the series YEB,
WFD, UHG, SKL? 
(A) QGL (B) TOL (C)QNL 
(D) QOL
(D) 
(D) 
(Pg. 
257) 
Delete
(Pg.46
) 
Delete Delete 
6. 
111. If dust is called air, air is called fire, fire is called 
water, water is called colour, colour is called rain and 
rain is called dust, then where do fish live? 
(A) Fire (B) Water (C)Colour 
(D) Dust 
Delete Delete 
(Pg.194, 
243 & 
256) 
(C) 
(Pg.47
) 
(D) 
(C) 
7. 
119. Arrange in logical sequence: 1) Butterfly  2) 
Cocoon  3) Egg  4) Worm 
(A) 1,3,4,2 (B) 1,4,3,2 (C) 2,4,1,3 (D) 3,4,2,1 
(A&D) A&D 
(Pg.242)
Not 
presse
d 
(D) 
(A&D) 
(Pg.95 
Gr.I) 
8.
124. Given the statements - “No fruit is tree. All 
flowers are trees”, which one of the following is 
correct? 
(A) No fruit is flower (B) Some trees are flowers 
(C)All flowers are fruits (D) None of these. 
(A)
(A)
(Pg. 
257) 
(A)
Pg.47) 
(A)
(A&B)
(Pg. 95 
Gr. J) 
9. 
125. Given the statements: All windows are doors 
and no door is wall. 
(A) No window is wall (B) No wall is door (C)Some 
windows are walls (D) None of these. 
(A) 
(A) 
(Pg.257)
(A) 
(Pg.48
) 
(A&B) 
Delete 
(A&B) 
(Pg. 96 
Gr.K) 
10. 135. How many minimum steps are necessary to 
change the word ‘SLEEP’ into ‘DREAM’? 
You have to change one letter at a time and all 
changes should result in a meaningful word. 
(A) 5 (B) 4 (C)6 (D) 7 
(A)
Not 
pressed 
Not 
presse
d 
(C)
(B)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
193
20. This court reiterates that the scope of judicial review under
Article 226 in matters concerning evaluation of candidates-particularly,
for purpose of recruitment to public services is narrow. The previous
decisions of the court3; have constantly underscored that in the absence
of any provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets, judicial review should
be rarely exercised - preferably under exceptional circumstances. A
three judge Bench of this court, in Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra)
held as follows:
“Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no
provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-
evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for
scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the
purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a
candidate have been examined and whether there has been
any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and
noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-
book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was
found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General
Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-
evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate
in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or
ask for re- evaluation of his marks.”
In Khushboo Shrivastava (supra) too, a similar view was echoed:
“7. We find that a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pramod
Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public
Service
Commission, Patna and Ors. (supra) has clearly held relying
on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar
Sheth and Ors. (supra) that in the absence of any provision
for the re-evaluation of answers books in the relevant rules,
BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. v.
ARUN KUMAR & ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
3 Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another
v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors (1984) 4 SCC 27; Pramod Kumar Srivastava
v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 714;
Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda (2004) 13 SCC 383; Himachal
Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr (2010) 6 SCC 759;
Gangadhara Palo v. Revenue Divisional Officer & Anr. (2011) 4 SCC 602; Central
Board of Secondary Education Through Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental
Entrance Examination & Ors. v. Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors (2014) 14 SCC 523 and
Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2018) 2 SCC 357.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
194
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
no candidate in an examination has any right to claim or ask
for re-evaluation of his marks. The decision in Pramod Kumar
Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission,
Patna and Ors. (supra) was followed by another three-Judge
Bench of this Court in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas
Ranjan Panda and Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 383 in which the
direction of the High Court for re-evaluation of answers books
of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks was held
to be unsustainable in law because the regulations of the
Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which conducted the
examination, did not make any provision for re-evaluation of
answers books in the rules.
8. In the present case, the bye-laws of the All India Pre-
Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 2007 conducted
by the CBSE did not provide for re-examination or
re-evaluation of answers sheets. Hence, the Appellants could
not have allowed such re-examination or re-evaluation on
the representation of the Respondent No. 1 and accordingly
rejected the representation of the Respondent No. 1 for
re-examination/re-evaluation of her answer sheets. The
Respondent No. 1, however, approached the High Court and
the learned Single Judge of the High Court directed
production of answer sheets on the Respondent No. 1
depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and when the answer sheets
were produced, the learned Single Judge himself compared
the answers of the Respondent
No. 1 with the model answers
produced by the CBSE and awarded two marks for answers
given by the Respondent No. 1 in the Chemistry and Botany,
but declined to grant any relief to the Respondent No. 1. When
Respondent No. 1 filed the LPA before the Division Bench of
the High Court, the Division Bench also examined the two
answers of the Respondent No. 1 in Chemistry and Botany
and agreed with the findings of the learned Single Judge that
the Respondent No. 1 deserved two additional marks for the
two answers. In our considered opinion, neither the learned
Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court could
have substituted his/its own views for that of the examiners
and awarded two additional marks to the Respondent No. 1
for the two answers in exercise of powers of judicial review
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
195
BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. v.
ARUN KUMAR & ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
under Article 226 of the Constitution as these are purely
academic matters. This Court in Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v.
Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors. (supra) has observed:
... As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the
Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own
views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to
academic matters in preference to those formulated by
professional men possessing technical expertise and rich
experience of actual day-to-day working of educational
institutions and the departments controlling them. It will
be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and
purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature,
isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems
involved in the working of the system and unmindful of
the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic
view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be
propounded....
9. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned
judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of
the High Court and dismiss the writ petition. There shall be no order
as to costs. We are informed that the first Respondent was admitted
to the MBBS Course subsequently. If so, her admission in the MBBS
Course will not be affected.”
21. The decision in Ran Vijay Singh (supra f.n.2), after a
review
of all previous decisions, held as follows:
“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we
only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They
are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an
examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or
scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the
authority conducting the examination may permit it;
(ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination
does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet
(as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit
re- evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly,
without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that
a material error has been committed;
(iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the
answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter
and academic matters are best left to academics;
(iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key
answers and proceed on that assumption; and
(v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the
examination authority rather than to the candidate.
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of
this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there
is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations.
This places the examination authorities in an unenviable
position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates.
Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination
exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is
no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in
preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that
even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts
to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the
task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court
must consider the internal checks and balances put in place
by the examination authorities before interfering with the
efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully
participated in the
examination and the examination
authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the
consequence of such interference where there is no finality
to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight
years. Apart from the examination authorities even the
candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise
of the result of the examination-whether they have passed or
not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by
the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or
University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not.
This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody’s
advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
197
BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION & ORS. v.
ARUN KUMAR & ORS. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of
all this is that public interest suffers.”
22. Given the clear declaration of law in the judgments of this
court, we are of the opinion that the unilateral exercise of re-valuation
undertaken by the High Court (both by the single judge and the Division
Bench) has not solved, but rather contributed to the chaos. No rule or
regulation was shown by any party during the hearing, which justified
the approach that was adopted. The BSSC, in our opinion, acted correctly
in the first instance, in referring the answers to a panel of experts. If
there were justifiable doubts about the recommendations of that panel,
the least that should have been done, was to require the BSSC to refer
the disputed or doubtful questions to another expert panel. That was not
done; the “corrections” indicated by the single judge were accepted by
the BSSC; several candidates who made it to the select list freshly drawn
up pursuant to his directions, were appointed. The Division Bench,
thereafter undertook the entire exercise afresh, compounding the matter
further by not referring the disputed questions to any panel of experts.
We are left reiterating the lament, (made in Ran Vijay) that the High
Court’s interference has not resulted in finality “to the result of the
examinations” despite a long lapse of time. There is an air of uncertainty
about
the entire selection - nay, the entire cadre, because the inter se
seniority of selected (and appointed) candidates is in a state of flux.
23. As noticed earlier, the committee of experts appointed by this
court has made its recommendations. Since the exercise indicates that
the previous re-evaluations (by the single judge and the division bench-
both made in the absence of expert recommendations) are not correct
or accurate, as an exceptional case, we propose to accept them. This
approach of ours is in tune with a recent judgment of this court in Pranav
Verma v. Registrar General of High Court of Punjab & Haryana4,
where the court accepted the recommendations of a single member
committee and directed revision of results in a public examination, relating
to recruitment of candidates to judicial service.
24. As a result of the above discussion, the BSSC is directed to
evaluate and publish the results afresh, in the light of the recommendations
and report of the experts (constituted by this court) subject to care being
taken by the BSSC and the Govt. of Bihar, not to disturb appointments
made previously pursuant to the directions of the single judge. In case
4 2019 SCC Online SC 1610
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
the number of selected candidates (on the basis of the revised result)
exceeds the vacancies available as on the last date indicated for
consideration (in the concerned recruitment or recruitments), the state
of Bihar would accommodate the excess numbers in the relevant cadres
as against future vacancies arising till 31.12.2019. This court is hereby
making these directions to put a quietus on the dispute, in exercise of its
extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
25. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment of the Patna
High Court, as well as the judgment of the single judge are hereby set
aside; the appeals are disposed of in the above terms without order on
costs.
Ankit Gyan
Appeals disposed of.