Courts cannot direct revaluation of examination answer sheets absent statutory or regulatory provision.

The petitioner appeared in the Civil Judge (J.D.) Mains Examination, 2024, conducted pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.12.2024.

His name was not included in the select list published on 20.02.2026.

After obtaining his answer sheet under the Right to Information Act, he alleged that certain answers had not been properly evaluated.

He submitted a representation dated 11.05.2026 seeking re-evaluation of his answer sheet, which remained pending.

The petitioner therefore approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking re-evaluation and a direction to the respondents to decide his representation.

The CGPSC opposed the petition, relying on the coordinate Bench’s decision in Krishna Devi Nag v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WPS No. 5890 of 2026, which had rejected an identical claim for re-evaluation.

Whether the High Court could direct re-evaluation of the petitioner’s Civil Judge (J.D.) Mains Examination answer sheet when the governing advertisement expressly excluded recounting or re-evaluation?

Whether the respondents could be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending representation seeking re-evaluation?

The Court applied Clause 15 of the examination advertisement, which provided that no request for recounting or re-evaluation of answer sheets would be entertained.

It relied on the established principle that, in the absence of a statutory rule or regulation permitting re-evaluation, a court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 ordinarily cannot direct re-evaluation.

This principle was drawn from Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759, Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, and Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission.

The Court also followed the coordinate Bench’s decision in Krishna Devi Nag v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, which had applied the same rule to the Civil Judge (Entry Level) Examination and had been affirmed in Writ Appeal No. 85 of 2024.

The Court found that the facts and legal issue in the present petition were identical to those decided in Krishna Devi Nag.

Clause 15 of the advertisement expressly barred requests for recounting or re-evaluation, and no statutory provision conferred a right upon the petitioner to seek re-evaluation.

Applying the Supreme Court’s rule that courts should not direct re-evaluation in the absence of an enabling statutory provision, the Court held that the petitioner’s request for re-evaluation could not be granted.

Since the pending representation sought the same impermissible relief, the Court also declined to issue a direction requiring its consideration and disposal.

It refused to direct re-evaluation of the petitioner’s answer sheet or consideration of his representation seeking such re-evaluation.