Re-evaluation of answer scripts is impermissible absent a clearly demonstrated material error.

The petitioner appeared in the Assistant Engineer (Civil) Competitive Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (“BPSC”) pursuant to Advertisement No. 2 of 2017.

He qualified in the preliminary examination, appeared in the mains examination and was called for interview, but was not selected.

He obtained 426 marks, whereas the EBC cut-off was 435 marks.

After obtaining his evaluated answer sheet under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner alleged that he had been awarded only 4 out of 20 marks for Question 8 and 6 out of 10 marks for Question 3(b) in General Engineering Science, Paper IV, Section II, despite having written answers deserving higher marks.

He claimed that re-evaluation would increase his marks by 15, resulting in a total of 441 marks, above the applicable cut-off.

The petitioner therefore sought re-evaluation of the relevant answers and consequential appointment as Assistant Engineer.

The State and BPSC opposed the petition on the ground that neither the applicable rules nor the advertisement permitted re-evaluation.

1. Whether the High Court could direct re-evaluation of the petitioner’s answer sheet in the absence of any statutory, regulatory or advertisement-based provision permitting re-evaluation.

2. Whether the petitioner had demonstrated, in the exceptional manner required by law, a clear and material error in the evaluation of Question 8 or Question 3(b) warranting judicial interference.

3. Whether, upon re-evaluation, the petitioner was entitled to be declared successful and appointed as an Assistant Engineer.

The Court applied the principle that re-evaluation of examination answer sheets is not a matter of right where the governing rules contain no provision permitting it, as held in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714.

It also relied on Ranvijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 357, which holds that, where re-evaluation is not permitted by the governing rules, a court may intervene only in rare or exceptional cases where a material error is demonstrated clearly, without inferential reasoning or rationalisation; courts should not themselves re-evaluate answer sheets because they lack academic expertise, and doubts should ordinarily be resolved in favour of the examination authority.

The Court further recognised that evaluation and allocation of marks are primarily within the examiner’s discretion.

The Court examined the petitioner’s evaluated answer sheet and found that the answers had in fact been evaluated.

The petitioner’s assertion that the answers deserved higher marks amounted essentially to a request for re-assessment of the examiner’s academic judgment, rather than proof of an objective or demonstrable error.

The fact that the examiner awarded different marks to different answers did not establish irrationality or improper evaluation; the BPSC submitted that the same examiner had awarded 4 marks for one answer and 16 marks for another.

Applying Pramod Kumar Srivastava, the Court held that the absence of any provision for re-evaluation defeated the petitioner’s claim as a matter of right.

Applying paragraph 30 of Ranvijay Singh, it found that the stringent condition in paragraph 30.2—a clearly demonstrated material error in a rare or exceptional case—was not satisfied, while the caution against judicial scrutiny of academic evaluation applied.

The Court also held that BPSC v. Dr. Eena Bahal was distinguishable because that case involved repeated evaluation by a committee, unlike the present case.

Consequently, the claims for enhancement of marks, declaration of success above the EBC cut-off and appointment as Assistant Engineer were rejected.

The writ petition was dismissed.