Courts cannot order answer-script re-evaluation without a governing rule or specific proof of illegality.

The petitioners participated in the CGPSC selection process pursuant to an advertisement dated 26 November 2025. After the Main Examination result was declared on 31 August 2026, 608 candidates were shortlisted for interview against 265 advertised posts.

The petitioners sought re-evaluation of their answer scripts and challenged the selection process, contending, among other things, that candidates should have been called for interview in a 1:3 ratio and that their requests for rechecking and transparency had not been properly considered.

The PSC stated that the applicable qualifying thresholds were 33% for unreserved candidates and 23% for reserved-category candidates, and that only candidates meeting those thresholds were called for interview; it also asserted that the rules did not provide for re-evaluation.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to re-evaluation of their answer scripts in the absence of a provision permitting re-evaluation under the applicable rules.

Whether the selection process required candidates to be called for interview in a 1:3 ratio, notwithstanding the prescribed minimum qualifying marks.

Whether the petitioners established grounds warranting judicial interference with the selection process, including based on alleged anomalies in previous examinations.

The Court applied the principle that, absent a provision in the governing rules permitting re-evaluation, a court ordinarily cannot direct re-evaluation of examination answer scripts, particularly where no specific illegality in evaluation is shown.

Relying on Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357, the Court reiterated that courts should not re-evaluate or scrutinise answer sheets because they lack the requisite academic expertise, and that academic matters are best left to experts.

The PSC also relied on Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 2 SCC 309, for the proposition that re-evaluation or scrutiny cannot be directed in the absence of an enabling provision.

The Court accepted the PSC’s affidavit that the 608 candidates called for interview had met the applicable category-wise qualifying thresholds.

The petitioners did not show that any candidate who met those thresholds had been excluded; accordingly, their reliance on a 1:3 interview ratio did not establish a basis to interfere.

Nor did they identify a specific illegality in the evaluation of their own scripts or point to a rule authorising re-evaluation. The Court therefore declined to order re-evaluation, consistent with the limits on judicial review in academic matters.

The allegations concerning anomalies in earlier examinations were not substantiated, and the challenge to the present examination lacked sufficient pleadings and facts.

Both writ petitions were dismissed, with no order as to costs.