Sidharth Shankar Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Mr. Prashant Sinha, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Tuhin Shankar learned Advocate for Bihar State University Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as, “Commission”), whereas the State is represented through Mr. Mahendra Prasad Verma.

This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 10283 of 2025, wherein this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation, bringing on record all the anomalies in awarding of marks, as had been mentioned in the reply to the rejoinder filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3, within a period of two weeks. Thereupon, the Commission was directed to consider the matter and pass an appropriate order. It was further directed that, in case any re-calculation was found necessary, the same be carried out within a period of four weeks.

In compliance with the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the Commission. The Commission, in its reasoned order, has stated that it had scrutinized the academic performance score of the petitioner through subject-matter specialists on 18.03.2026. However, despite such scrutiny, the Commission has awarded lesser marks towards the academic performance score. Inasmuch as the marks have been revised from 328 to 340, whereas, according to the petitioner, even after the said revision, he is entitled to 80 marks, thereby bringing his academic performance score to 420 and making him entitled to 60 marks against the academic performance score.

The impugned reasoned order passed by the respondents is alleged to be erroneous. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a review application on 16.05.2026, pointing out the discrepancies in the calculation made in the said reasoned order. The detailed discrepancies alleged to have been committed by the concerned respondents have specifically been set out in paragraph no. 23 of the writ petition. A copy of the review petition has also been placed on record as Annexure-P/12 to the writ petition.

Mr. Sinha, learned Advocate for the petitioner, further submitted that, by filing the aforesaid representation, the petitioner had brought on record all the anomalies in the award of marks. Notwithstanding the same, the Commission or the expert body has failed to consider the grounds and objections raised by the petitioner.

Per contra, Mr. Tuhin Shankar, learned Advocate appearing for the Commission, submitted that, on a bare perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the same has been passed in compliance with the order of this Court and is a reasoned order.

Having considered the nature of the grievance raised by the petitioner, as also the fact that the petitioner has specifically pointed out the anomalies and discrepancies allegedly committed in awarding of marks and has, in this regard, filed a specific objection/review petition before the Chairman of the Bihar State University Service Commission, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct respondent no. 2 to consider the review petition of the petitioner afresh, in the light of the grounds and anomalies pointed out therein. A copy of the said review petition has been brought on record as Annexure-P/12 to the writ petition. Such consideration shall preferably be completed within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

It is made clear that this Court expects that all the grounds raised by the petitioner in the review petition shall be duly considered and dealt with by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.