GREEN GENE ENVIRO PROTECTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
Access to Answer Books and Re-evaluation in Judicial Service Exams: Balancing Transparency with Examination Integrity under Article 226.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:57712-DB
Decision Date: 24-12-2025
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 14; Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a); Constitution of India, Article 21; Constitution of India, Article 226; Maharashtra Public Service Commission Rules; Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008; Right to Information Act (RTI); Writ of Mandamus
- Facts: Several candidates who were not selected for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate (First Class) after appearing in the competitive main examination-2022 filed writ petitions seeking a direction to the respondent-Authority to furnish them with their answer books. They argued that the decision not to provide answer books through RTI was illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, violating their fundamental rights. One petitioner sought re-evaluation and recalculation of the merit list based on priority order criteria.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioners challenged orders passed by the Nodal Officer, General Administration Department, and the Public Information Officer, Maharashtra Public Service Commission, through writ petitions filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under its civil appellate jurisdiction.
- Issue: (1) Whether the respondent-Authority is obligated to furnish answer books to candidates who were not selected in the competitive examination. (2) Whether the High Court can direct re-evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of specific rules permitting it. (3) Under what circumstances can a writ of mandamus be issued to direct the examination body to permit an aggrieved candidate to see their answer-book?
- Holding: The High Court permitted the petitioners to peruse their answer-books only for the purpose as indicated in “Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee”, observing that the writ court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to avoid grave injustice to a candidate if there is no dispute about the correctness of the answer, but any doubt should be resolved in favor of the examining body. The writ petitions were disposed of in these terms.
- Reasoning: The Court considered arguments based on Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as previous Supreme Court decisions, including “Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee” and “Aditya Bandopadhyay”. The Court emphasized that a writ of mandamus requires an enforceable right flowing from statute, rules, or government notifications. While acknowledging the power of the writ court under Article 226 to prevent injustice, the Court also stressed the need to maintain the sanctity of competitive examinations. The Court distinguished between situations where there is a clear error in evaluation (e.g., no marks for a correct answer) and cases where the evaluation is merely disputed. The Court cited "Goan Real Estate and Construction Limited & Anr.” and "Ambica Quarry Works & Anr." to highlight the importance of understanding the ratio decidendi of a case within its specific factual context.
🔒 For Members Only