1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

                  “(i) For allotting appropriate marks against the questions which were answered correctly by the petitioners by opting the correct options in the objective type paper (Computer Based Test) pursuant to Advertisement No.02/2023 (PGTTCE-2023) for appointment on the post of Post Graduate Trained Teacher in different subjects.

                  (ii) For bringing on record the secured storage for answers to the questions by the petitioners, which are stored in the form of DVD by the examination conducting outsource agency.

                  (iii) For keeping seats vacant for the petitioners till disposal of the instant writ petition.”

2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioners and learned counsel representing the respondents.

3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) issued an advertisement being Advertisement No.02/2023 (PGTTCE-2023) to recruit Post Graduate Trained Teachers (Regular Vacancy).

                  3.1. The examination was conducted in Computer Based Test (CBT) mode through empanelled Agencies between 18th August, 2023 and 10th September, 2023.The petitioners applied and appeared in the examination. After the exam, JSSC published the provisional answer key on 20th September, 2023 and invited objections from candidates.

                  3.2. Later, JSSC stated that experts had reviewed the objections and released a final answer key. However, it was found that due to some technical or software error, the options chosen by candidates were shown incorrect/ got jumbled. Because of this issue, JSSC revised some answers after expert review. According to the petitioners, due to jumbling of options, the petitioners correct answers were treated as wrong, affecting their merit and selection.

4. It is the grievance of the petitioners that they have selected the correct options, but the respondents have wrongly evaluated the answer sheet.

5. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that the errors occurred due to technical faults of JSSC or its empanelled Agency, for which the petitioners cannot be made responsible. He also submits that action of the respondent - Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission in not considering the objection raised by the petitioners with respect to change occurred due to jumbled option of their responses in the final answer key and not taking the correct measures for redressing the grievance, is arbitrary.

6. Learned counsel representing the respondent – JSSC, submits that recruitment was conducted in a fair, transparent, and uniform manner through Computer Based Test (CBT) mode by duly empanelled and technically competent examination Agencies. He further submits that adequate safeguards were in place to ensure accuracy, confidentiality, and integrity of the examination process. He also submits that candidates were given sufficient opportunity to raise objections within the stipulated time and all objections received were carefully examined by subject experts.

7. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I am of the view that there is no evidence to show that the petitioners were treated differently from other candidates. The petitioners’ complaint is mainly that their answers in the Computer Based Test were wrongly evaluated because of a technical or software issue. Courts should not themselves re-check or reassess answer sheets, as they do not have academic expertise.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme court in case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, at Para-30, has held as hereunder:-

                  “30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:

                  30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;

                  30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;

                  30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate—it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;

                  30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.”

9. In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, I find that in matter relating to evaluation of answer sheets and determination of correctness of answers, the scope of judicial review is extremely limited. This Court also notes that several candidates participated in the same examination under the same conditions and the petitioners have failed to establish that the alleged technical issue vitiated the entire selection process or that the respondent Commission acted in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner.

10. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is dismissed.

11. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.