The Patna High Court, in a 2020 decision delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh, directed the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC) to publish model answer keys, invite objections, disclose category-wise cut-offs, and provide individual marks for the Inter Level Combined Competitive Examination. The ruling emphasizes transparency and fairness in multiple-choice recruitment tests conducted in Bihar.
Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
This case arose from the BSSC’s First Inter Level Combined Examination, originally advertised in October 2014 for posts requiring Intermediate (10+2) qualification across various departments. The preliminary exam, a 150-question objective test covering General Knowledge, General Science & Mathematics, and Comprehension/Reasoning/Mental Ability, had a troubled history: parts of the 2017 process were cancelled after a criminal case alleged paper leaks and use of unfair means, leading to a fresh preliminary exam in December 2018 and results announced in February 2020. The petitioners challenged the lack of transparency—specifically, the BSSC’s refusal to publish the model answer keys, category-wise cut-off marks, and individual scores.
The Commission defended its stance by arguing that (i) there was no statutory or administrative mandate to publish model answers; (ii) publishing answer keys often triggered litigation, delaying recruitment; and (iii) a panel of experts had already scrutinized all questions and keys, even deleting some ambiguous or erroneous questions, so an objection process was unnecessary. The petitioners countered that the Commission had a record of past errors in answer keys and that withholding keys prevents candidates from identifying and correcting mistakes—contrary to principles of fairness recognized by higher courts.
The High Court narrowed the controversy to a single core question: to ensure fairness and transparency in a multiple-choice, objective-type selection, must the Commission publish the answer keys and invite objections before finalizing results? Relying on Supreme Court guidance that publication of key answers promotes transparency and gives candidates a meaningful opportunity to challenge mistakes, the Court rejected the Commission’s fear-of-litigation rationale as “regressive.” It held that avoiding litigation cannot justify curbing transparency—especially where candidates’ future prospects are at stake.
Importantly, the Court did not set aside the published result outright. Instead, it crafted a workable set of directions to restore confidence and fairness without derailing the process. The Commission was ordered to upload the answer keys used for evaluation, invite and consider objections through an expert body, modify keys if necessary, and then publish a revised result if corrections are warranted. The Court also directed BSSC to display category-wise cut-offs and provide petitioners their marks. These steps, the Court noted, would both improve the integrity of the selection and minimize future disputes by addressing errors promptly and transparently.
The judgment situates BSSC’s duties within broader administrative law principles. Judicial review is not about second-guessing expert answers but about ensuring that administrative action is rational, proportionate, and fair. The Court accepted that “to err is human,” especially in large-scale objective exams, but emphasized that a structured, expert-led objection process is the proportionate response. Such a process balances efficiency with candidates’ rights, aligns with established practice in similar examinations, and reflects the Supreme Court’s consistent call for openness in competitive tests.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)
• For candidates and the public: The ruling strengthens the right to a transparent recruitment process in Bihar. Publishing answer keys, inviting objections, and declaring cut-offs reduce uncertainty, enable error correction, and help restore trust in public examinations.
• For the government and BSSC: The judgment offers a clear, court-approved process that can lower long-term litigation risk by resolving disputes early through an expert review of objections. It also sets a benchmark for other recruitment bodies in Bihar to adopt consistent, transparent practices in MCQ-based exams.
• Systemic impact: By emphasizing proportionality and fairness, the decision encourages exam-conducting authorities to adopt robust quality controls—like expert committees, pre-publication scrutiny of questions/keys, and time-bound objection windows—without sacrificing speed.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning
• Should a recruiting body conducting an MCQ-based exam publish model answer keys and invite objections before finalizing results?
— Yes. The Court held that transparency and fairness require disclosure of the model keys and an opportunity for objections, to be assessed by experts. Avoiding potential litigation is not a valid ground to keep keys secret. This approach aligns with Supreme Court jurisprudence that publication of answer keys is a step towards transparency and fairness.
• Can efficiency concerns justify withholding answer keys, cut-offs, and individual marks?
— No. The Court found the Commission’s justification “regressive.” Fear that keys may trigger litigation cannot outweigh candidates’ right to a fair, transparent process. Instead, a structured objection process better manages disputes while preserving integrity.
• What remedial framework should apply if errors are found in keys or questions?
— The Court directed a time-bound mechanism: publish keys; invite online objections with supporting material; have an expert body decide; modify/delete questions or correct keys as needed; and then publish revised results and category-wise cut-offs. Individual marks should also be given to the petitioners. This balances administrative efficiency with fairness and proportionality.
Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)
• By petitioners:
— Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309
— Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 690
— Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2018) 8 SCC 81
• By respondents (Commission):
— Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission v. Ramesh Kumar, 2019 (2) PLJR 416
— Richal v. RPSC, (2018) 8 SCC 81 (para 18 referred)
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)
• Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309 — publication of key answers promotes transparency; secrecy would make the remedy worse than the disease.
• Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 690 — re-evaluation and correction are appropriate to preserve purity of selection and avoid undeserved advantage.
• Richal v. RPSC, (2018) 8 SCC 81 — objections to key answers and expert scrutiny advance fairness and perfection; permits revising results accordingly.
• All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar, (2010) 6 SCC 614 — review of administrative action on proportionality and reasonableness.
• Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489; Nagar Nigam, Meerut v. Al Faheem Meat Exports (P) Ltd., (2006) 13 SCC 382 — principles on fair, non-arbitrary state action.
Case Title
Petitioners v. State of Bihar & Others (BSSC Inter Level Examination – Answer Key Disclosure)
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (CWJC) No. 7949 of 2020
Citation(s)
2021(1) PLJR 866
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh.
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
• For the petitioners: Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Advocate; Mrs. Namrata Dubey, Advocate
• For the State: Mr. Shiv Shankar Prasad, S.C.-8
• For the Commission: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate; Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Link to Judgment
MTUjNzk0OSMyMDIwIzEjTg==-onR67–ak1–Ks65w=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
