The Supreme Court on February 9, 2026, set aside key directions of the Jharkhand High Court that had interfered with the answer key of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Preliminary Entrance Test, holding that the High Court “cannot assume the role of super-examiner/subject expert” while exercising judicial review over competitive examinations.
The judgment was delivered in Civil Appeal Nos. arising out of SLP (C) Diary Nos. 50269/2025, 49969/2025, 50216/2025, SLP (C) No. 21079/2025 and Diary No. 50163/2025, titled Jharkhand Public Service Commission & Anr. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., decided by a Bench comprising the Chief Justice, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice N.V. Anjaria.
The appeals arose from the final judgment dated April 25, 2025, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in WPS No. 4178/2024.
The controversy centred around the Preliminary Entrance Test conducted on March 10, 2024, for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), pursuant to Advertisement No. 22/2023 dated August 14, 2023.
The High Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction, had examined the answer key published on May 13, 2024, and concluded that three answers, Question Nos. 8, 7,4 and 96 in Booklet ‘A’, were incorrect.
In paragraph 33 of its judgment, the High Court directed that one mark be awarded to candidates who selected option (A) in Question No. 8 and that Question Nos. 74 and 96 be deleted from consideration.
However, it simultaneously held that
“in the absence of an express provision in the statute, rules or regulations governing the examination, re-evaluation of the answer sheets is impermissible.”
Before the Supreme Court, the principal issue was framed in clear terms:
“The issue that falls for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the High Court of Jharkhand, in exercise of its power of judicial review, rightly interfered in the particulars of the answer key published on 13.05.2024 of the Preliminary Entrance Test held on 10.03.2024 for the recruitment of Civil Judge (Junior Division).”
The Bench acknowledged the institutional stature and expertise of High Court judges, particularly in matters concerning judicial service examinations.
It observed,
“It may be true that the subject examination pertains to recruitment to judicial services and as such the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court, keeping in view their vast experience on Bar and Bench, are expected to have a better understanding and appreciation of the questions that were put to the candidates in the examination.”
However, the Court made it clear that the scope of judicial review does not expand merely because the examination relates to recruitment to the judiciary.
The Bench posed a critical question:
“whether the power of judicial review in the matter of re-evaluation, re-appreciation, or re-consideration of the answer key would apply uniformly, irrespective of the nature of the examination.”
Answering that question, the Court held in categorical terms,
“In this regard, it seems to us that the High Court cannot assume the role of super-examiner/subject expert, and such an exercise should ordinarily be left to the domain experts.”
The Supreme Court further noted the specific factual position taken by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission that the answer key had been duly vetted by the High Court on the administrative side.
The Bench observed that if such vetting had indeed taken place, a different institutional approach ought to have been adopted before judicial interference.
The Court stated that in such circumstances,
“it is necessary for the High Court, while exercising its judicial authority, to have referred the matter to the respective Committee of the High Court, as well as to the Public Service Commission, for the formation of an additional Committee comprising subject experts, including eminent law professors as domain field experts, with one of the members being a Professor of English, to provide assistance and guidance.”
It added that this would have enabled such experts
“to reassess the answer key concerning questions nos. 8, 74, and 96.”
The Bench was unequivocal in holding,
“The High Court ought not to have assumed this responsibility while exercising its power of judicial review.”
At the same time, it endorsed the High Court’s reiteration of settled law on re-evaluation, observing that the High Court had
“rightly restated the settled legal position that there cannot be a re-evaluation of an answer sheet unless the rules, regulations or policy expressly provide so.”
Thus, while affirming the legal principle against re-evaluation in the absence of statutory backing, the Supreme Court found fault with the High Court’s direct interference in the correctness of specific answers in the key.
Allowing the appeals in part, the Supreme Court set aside paragraph Nos. 33, 36, 39, 40 and 41 of the impugned judgment. It directed that
“the matters are referred to the Committee constituted by the High Court on the administrative side to re-examine the answer key in respect of the disputed questions and send its opinion to the Public Service Commission for necessary follow-up action.”
The Court mandated that
“the needful be done within two weeks.”
The Bench also requested the High Court to conclude the pending selection process expeditiously, thereby underscoring the importance of timely recruitment to the judicial service.
Significantly, the Court clarified that it had not adjudicated on the substantive correctness of the disputed questions or the answer key. It stated,
“It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the disputed questions or the answer key.”
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
