BPSC must consider and decide a candidate’s fresh representation challenging answer-key discrepancies.

The petitioner participated in the examination conducted pursuant to BPSC Advertisement No. 22/2024 for appointment as Government School Teacher (Classes 6–8, SST subject), held on 19 July 2024.

The Bihar Public Service Commission published a provisional answer key on 30 August 2024 and invited objections between 2 and 8 September 2024.

The petitioner challenged the answers to Questions G-20, G-27 and E-36 of Question Booklet Series “J”, contending that the correct options were E, E and D respectively, instead of the options adopted by the Commission.

The Commission published the final answer key on 22 September 2024. According to the petitioner, only one objection concerning Question E-6 was considered, while his objections to the other questions were not addressed, resulting in his non-selection.

He thereafter submitted a detailed representation dated 28 November 2024.

The State and the Commission maintained that all objections had been considered and that only the objection found meritorious had been accepted.

1. Whether the petitioner’s objections to the provisional answer key, particularly regarding Questions G-20, G-27 and E-36 of Series “J”, were duly considered by the BPSC before publication of the final answer key.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to correction of the final answer key, re-evaluation of his OMR sheet and consequential consideration for appointment.

3. Whether the petitioner’s pending representation required consideration and disposal by the Commission.

The Court did not decide the correctness of the disputed answers or lay down any independent rule concerning judicial review of examination answer keys.

It applied the limited procedural principle that a candidate’s duly submitted objections to a provisional answer key must receive consideration by the examining authority, particularly where the candidate has made a specific representation concerning alleged errors.

The Court consequently adopted a remedial, representation-based course rather than directly directing alteration of the answer key or re-evaluation.

The petitioner asserted that his objections to three questions had not been considered, whereas the Commission contended that the objections had been examined and lacked merit, except for the objection relating to Question E-6.

Without determining which version was factually correct or independently assessing the disputed answers, the Court held that the petitioner’s detailed representation was at least required to be considered by the Commission.

Since the grievance could be addressed administratively through consideration of the representation, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to submit a fresh application to the Controller of Examination rather than granting the substantive reliefs of quashing the result, revising the answer key or directing appointment.

The petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh application before the Controller of Examination, BPSC, preferably within one week.

If filed, the Commission was directed to consider and dispose of it preferably within three weeks thereafter.