Civil Judges Exam | Jharkhand HC Finds 3 Incorrect Answers In Revised Key; Orders Re-Computation Of Marks, Publishing Of Final Merit List

The Jharkhand High Court has found that three answers in the revised answer key released by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) for the preliminary examination to the post of Civil Judges (Junior Division) were demonstrably incorrect and contrary to established law and precedent.

Referring to Supreme Court's judgement Kanpur University & Ors v. Samir Gupta & Ors, a division bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Deepak Roshan in its order said thatnormally the key answer should be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held as wrong by inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization.

The bench reiterated that it must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong i.e., it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct.

The Court stated:

"In the instant case, therefore, notwithstanding the absence of a provision permitting re-evaluation of the answers given in the key answer by the respondents, since the examination in question and the questions in respect of which the answer key is doubted pertain to “English language” and the subject “Law”, and not other technical subjects (such as Science) in respect of which this Court can be held not to have expertise, and since in the facts and circumstances of the case we are satisfied that the key answers, to the questions mentioned above are demonstrated without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization by the petitioners, to be incorrect, as explained below, and since we are of the opinion that no reasonable body of men well-versed in the subjects of English and Law can regard them as correct, we reject the technical pleas raised by the JPSC and propose to go further and deal with the questions in respect of whom the answer-key is alleged to be demonstrably wrong". 

The above ruling was delivered in a batch of writ petitions, filed by one Riya Sonal and ten other petitioners, all of whom had appeared for the preliminary examination conducted by JPSC for the recruitment of Civil Judges and challenged the revised answer keys notified by the JPSC in its May 13, 2024 Press Release in regard to certain questions in the examination.

The primary grievance was with regard to three questions–Nos. 8, 74, and 96 in Series A–which the petitioners argued were either answered incorrectly or revised arbitrarily by the JPSC.

In Question 8, which required the candidates to choose the correct English sentence, the petitioners contended that Option (A): “More than one boy was absent from the class,” was the grammatically correct sentence. However, the JPSC in its revised key marked Option (B): “More than one boy were absent from the class” as correct. The Court, accepting the petitioners' contention, held, “without a doubt, Option (A) is the correct answer and Option (B) given by JPSC cannot be said to be correct.”

The second disputed question, Question 74, was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 943/2021, which asked as to which IPC were mentioned by the Supreme Court in the said order.

JPSC had marked Option (D) i.e., Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 506, as the correct answer. The petitioners pointed out that Section 506 IPC was not mentioned in the Supreme Court order, and instead, Section 505 was. Upon examining the original judgment, the Court agreed with the petitioners.

The Court said, “the Supreme Court mentioned only Sections 153A, 153B, Section 295A and Section 505, etc. It did not mention Section 506... The JPSC's answer, i.e. Option (D) (which included Section 506 IPC), cannot be said to be correct.”

The Court also rejected the argument of the JPSC that the word “etc.” used in the Supreme Court's order could be read to include Section 506. It said, “if such an interpretation is given, the word 'etc.' would cover every Section in the Indian Penal Code, and that could not have been the intention of the Supreme Court in the above judgment.”

Moving to Question 96, which was related to the law of agency under the Indian Contract Act, the petitioners argued that JPSC had initially indicated Option (C) to be the correct answer, but later changed it to Option (A). The petitioners further argued that Option (A) was in fact a correct legal statement and should not have been identified as incorrect. They submitted that both Options (B) and (C) were legally incorrect and should have been acceptable. The Court agreed and held, “Option (A) given by the JPSC is wrong.”

The Court also upheld the petitioners' argument that both Option (B), which incorrectly stated that only persons of majority could be agents, and Option (C), which incorrectly claimed that the authority of agents must be expressed in writing, were wrong as per Sections 184 and 186 of the Indian Contract Act, respectively.

The Court said, “petitioners are right in contending that both options (B) and (C) would be the correct answers to Question No.96.”

After examining each of the three questions, the High Court concluded that the answers given by JPSC in the revised answer key were clearly erroneous and warranted correction.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petitions to the extent of these three questions and directed JPSC, “to give one mark to the persons who answered to Option (A) in Question No.8 in Booklet A and delete Question No.74 and Question No.96 in Booklet A from consideration.”

Notably, once the two questions will be deleted, there would be only 98 questions with a total 98 marks.

Thus, the Court directed, “The JPSC shall first compute the marks obtained by each candidate as per this judgment for total 98 marks. Since such marks obtained would be for 98 questions carrying total 98 marks only, it shall then recompute the marks of each candidate taking the total marks as 100 as indicated below and then apply the cut-off mark.”

“The JPSC shall thus compute the marks of the candidates who appeared in the examination and publish the final merit-list of the successful candidates keeping in mind the above directions,” the Court concluded.

Case Title: Namita Raje v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 39

Click Here To Read Judgement