JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Since both these writ applications are inter-connected and similar issue is involved; as such, both are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. W.P.(S). No. 2988 of 2025 has been preferred for the following reliefs: i. For quashing the entire merit list of mains examination [Annexure-4] with respect to Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination, 2023, issued vide Advertisement No. 01/2024. ii. For declaring action of the respondents in getting the mains examination answer sheet evaluated without authority of law by digital evaluation and through third party as illegal, unlawful and without authority of law. iii. Further direction may be issued to reevaluate the answer sheet for the mains examination pursuant to Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination, 2023, issued vide Advertisement No. 01/2024 strictly in compliance with the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (Rules of Procedures), 2002. iv. Alternatively, it is also prayed that the whole mains examination may be declared to be null and void and the mains examination may be conducted afresh, in accordance with law. v. During the pendency of the writ petition, the process of document verification and interview to be conducted as per Annexure-5, may kindly be stayed. 3. W.P.(S). No. 3185 of 2025 has been preferred for following the reliefs: i) to issue a Rule NISI calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why not the mains examination result [ANNEXURE-6 (colly)] published by JPSC for Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination-2023 in pursuance of the Advertisement No.01 of 2024, be Cancelled; and ii) Upon return of the rule and on perusing the cause shown, if any, be further pleased to make the rule absolute against the Respondents; and/or iii) Cancel the interview process of the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination-2023 in pursuance of the Advertisement No.01 of 2024. Or/and iv) Direct the JPSC to conduct evaluation process of the answer booklets in terms of Jharkhand Public Service Commission -Rules of Procedure 2002; Or/and v) Direct the JPSC not to publish final result and its recruitment process with reference to Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination-2023 in pursuance of the Advertisement No.01 of 2024, until final adjudication of the instant petition; or/and vi) Direct the Respondents to set up enquiry for there exists anomalies in the adopted method of Digital checking of answer booklets Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination-2023 in pursuance of the Advertisement No.01 of 2024. vii) Direct the Respondents to compensate the Petitioners. viii) Direct the JPSC to produce the physical as well as digital copy of answer booklets of Petitioners before this Hon'ble Court so much so to assess the sanctity of the said booklets as the scanning process might have been done by tearing apart the answer booklets pages. ix) Alternatively, Direct the JPSC to conduct fresh Mains Examination Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination-2023 in pursuance of the Advertisement No.01 of 2024, if the answer booklets are so tampered which cannot regain its sanctity. ([WRIT PETITION (Civil) No.298/2015 Tanvi Sarwal Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Ors (2015) 6 SCC 573 ].” Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 2988 of 2025: 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that entire merit list of mains examination (Annexure-4) with respect to Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination, 2023, issued vide Advt. No. 01/2024 is not sustainable in the eyes of law since the answer sheets of written examination have been evaluated by the 3 rd party. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it is not clear on what basis the 3 rd party was appointed to evaluate the papers or scan the papers and their expertise is also neither clear nor disclosed which runs contrary to the spirit of transparency and accountability. It is also not disclosed as to if 3 rd party was appointed for scanning or evaluation or for both. The procedural/ institutional integrity is lost and that lack of procedural due process vitiates the whole examination at the stage of mains examination. 5. Learned counsel further argues that the paper cutting itself shows that the hourly/contractual based and guest faculty have evaluated the copies. The procedural/ institutional integrity is lost and that lack of procedural due process vitiates the whole examination at the stage of mains examination. 5. Learned counsel further argues that the paper cutting itself shows that the hourly/contractual based and guest faculty have evaluated the copies. It appears that the pool has been created by the 3rd party agency and not by the Commission and, therefore, this is also one of the fundamental flaws in the examination process which has completely washed away the secrecy, transparency and sanctity of the whole examination process. It is alleged that for the Khortha Language, the Assistant Professor Riya Dey, Riju Ghasi, Arbind Kumar and Bhubaneshwar have evaluated the copies, who have not completed their two years of service whereas Kanchan Kumari and Ahaliya Kumari are hourly based teachers. Babita Kumari and Bhubaneshwar are the teachers under Inter-College. Similarly, the Nagpuri language, who have evaluated the answer sheets for the Mains Examination are the Assistant Professor Karn Louis Minz, Poonam Kumari and Ram Jay Nayak, who have less than two years of experience whereas the Virendra Kumar Mahato and Ritu Nayak are the contractual based teachers; for Karmali language, who has evaluated the answer sheets for the Mains Examination is Ashok Mahato, who is an hourly/contractual based teacher; for Panch Pargania language, who has evaluated the answer sheets is Parmanand Mahato, who is also an hourly/ contractual based teacher; for Mundari language, the Assistant Professor Virender Soy has evaluated the answer sheets, who has been appointed by the JPSC nearly about one and half years back; for the Khariya language, Chandra Kishore Kerketta has evaluated the answer sheet for the Mains Examination, who is also an hourly based contractual teacher and for the language Kurukh, the Assistant Professor Prem Chand Oraon, Hemant Toppo and Bande Khalkho have evaluated the answer sheets who also have been appointed by the JPSC one and half years back; for the Ho language, the answer sheets for the mains examination have been evaluated by Arjun Birua, who is also a Guest Faculty. 6. 6. Learned counsel further submits that as it is evident that the answer sheets have been evaluated by a person who is ineligible in terms of the Rules of Procedure, 2002 and, therefore, any evaluation done by these teachers who lacks qualification pin points towards the integrity of the whole selection process and, therefore, it is prayed that the merits list of the Mains Examination may be quashed and set aside and, accordingly, a direction may also be issued for evaluation of the answer sheets of the Mains Examination strictly in accordance with the Rules. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners’ places heavy reliance on the judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rompalli Sankara Rao & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.,2021 SCC Online AP 3041 Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 3185 of 2025: 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners and other candidates came across the Times of India e-newspaper dated 26.06.2024, wherein the JPSC sources stated that the mains examination offline papers would be evaluated in online mode and the same would start at the JPSC office in Ranchi, from 31.07.2024 in order to ensure transparency in evaluation and to curb any kind of fraudulent conduct, especially the leak of papers and its tampering. JPSC had also anticipated that the evaluation would be completed within 20 days (20.08.2024) but needless to say it took 10 months approximately. Learned counsel further argues that it was again published in the e-newspaper of News Wing dated 02.07.2024, wherein, the 50 plus experts who had come to evaluate the mains examination answer booklet, had gone on an excursion to Patratu Dam, needless to say that the present annexed newspaper shows the pictures of those Examiners. It is further submitted that the experts involved in the evaluation process are not supposed to go anywhere during the period of evaluation but the then Secretary himself was also a part of the said excursion. It is further submitted that the experts involved in the evaluation process are not supposed to go anywhere during the period of evaluation but the then Secretary himself was also a part of the said excursion. Learned counsel further argues that yet again the Petitioners were taken by surprise by the newspaper publication in Dainik Bhaskar dated 20.08.2024, wherein and whereunder it came to light that, instead of getting the mains examination answer booklets evaluated by the experts having 10 years of experience in teaching in colleges and/or 5 years of experience in teaching P.G students, J.P.S.C. had entrusted the responsibility of evaluating the mains examinations answer booklets in the hands of guest faculties, ghanta adharit shikshaks, and Assistant Professors who were appointed by the J.P.S.C itself. Learned counsel further submits that the news reporter tried to reach out to the concerned Controller of Examination, for queries, but were not successful. The report further brought to light the details of the evaluators, which are as follows: i. Khortha language: Assistant Professors (Bhubneshwar) having less than 2 years of experience, being Riya Dey, Rijhu Ghasi, Arvind Kumar. Babita Kumari teaching in Bhubneshwar inter college and Kanchan Kumari and Ahilya Kumari being ghanta aadharit shikshaks. ii. Nagpuri language: Assistant Professors having teaching experience of less than 2 years being Cornelius Minz, Poonam Kumari, Ramjay Nayak. Virendra Kumar Mahto and Ritu Nayak being contractual ghanti adharit shikshak (guest faculty class basis). iii. Kurmali language: Ashok Mahto a ghanti adharit shikshak. iv. Panch parganiya language: Parmanand Mahto a ghanta adharit shikshak. v. Mundari language: Assistant Professor Virendra Soy (appointed by J.P.S.C., one and a half year ago). vi. Khadiya language: Chandra Kishor Kerketta a ghanti adharit shikshak. vii. Kudukh language: Assistant Professor Prem Chandra Oraon, Hemant Toppo, Bande Khalkho (appointed one and a half year ago by J.P.S.C.,) viii. Ho language: Arjun Birua a guest faculty. Though according to the J.P.S.C. Rules Chapter III, Column 4(8) wherein and whereunder, it has been clarified about the eligibility of evaluators. The question paper setter, examination moderators, and evaluators would be such teaching staffs, who have 10 years of experience in teaching in colleges and/or 5 years of teaching experience in P.G. Department, who will be further approved by the Commission and then only be entrusted with the conduction process. The question paper setter, examination moderators, and evaluators would be such teaching staffs, who have 10 years of experience in teaching in colleges and/or 5 years of teaching experience in P.G. Department, who will be further approved by the Commission and then only be entrusted with the conduction process. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are affected by this non-compliance of rules for keeping competent persons as examiners as the petitioners are having language papers as follows:- Sl. no. Petitioner Paper II 1. Petitioner no.1 Nagpuri Language and Literature. 2. Petitioner no.2 English Language and Literature. 3. Petitioner no.3 Nagpuri Language and Literature. 4. Petitioner no.4 Nagpuri Language and Literature. 5. Petitioner No. 5 Khortha Language and Literature. 6. Petitioner No. 6 Khortha Language and Literature. 7. Petitioner No. 7 Khortha Language and Literature. 8. Petitioner No. 8 Khortha Language and Literature. 9. Petitioner No. 9 Khortha Language and Literature. 10. Petitioner No. 10 Nagpuri Language and Literature. 11. Petitioner No. 11 Khortha Language and Literature. 8. Learned counsel further submits that after the completion of the mains examination in June 2024, the petitioner no.2 got two missed calls while driving his vehicle and when he returned the said calls he found that one alleged J.P.S.C staff (02.10.2024) from Phone number bearing 9006360060 to phone number of Petitioner no.2 that is 9341559307, wherein the Petitioners were demanded a total of Rs.10.00 lakh in order to secure a post in the said examination, and the bifurcation of the amount was such that, the candidate would have to deposit One lakh immediately in the account, and the remaining Rs.9,00,000/- was to be deposited after the interview. Appropriate it would be to mention here that the callers were in possession all details of candidates, as they were giving the personal details of the Petitioners over the call, in order to gain their trust. That the Petitioner no.2 also went to Police Station at Rupaspur, Patna Post-Danapur to report the said incident but it went in vain as the concerned police said they will not lodge the FIR as it concerned JPSC which is Jharkhand and said to go back to Ranchi for the same, however, the Petitioner no.2 elder brother had leg fracture due to which he returned after two months to Ranchi. 9. 9. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners places heavy reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Somesh Thapliyal & Anr. Vs. V.C., H.N.B. Garhwal University & Anr., (2021) 10 SCC 116 Submissions of learned counsel for the respondents: 10. Learned counsel for the Respondents opposing the prayer submits that the ground of filing the instant writ application was on the basis of several newspapers with regard to mode of evaluation of answer-sheets and all were published in the month June/July, 2024 and when final result of written examination was published on 20.05.2025, the Petitioners knocked the door of this Court after being unsuccessful. As such, they are not entitled to raise their grievance at this stage when the Main examination result has already been published. Findings of the Court: 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the pleadings; this Court is not entertaining both these writ applications for the following reasons: i) Any examinee is not having any right to dictate the terms of evaluation of the answer-sheet to the conducting Body, who is alone competent to appoint experts. Moreover, they are also not having any right as to who should become the evaluator or what should be mode of paper correction; whether it should be online or offline. ii) As a matter of fact, as per the pleadings it is JPSC sources stated that the mains examination offline papers would be evaluated in online mode and the same would start at the JPSC office in Ranchi, from 31.07.2024 in order to ensure transparency in evaluation and to curb any kind of fraudulent conduct, especially the leak of papers and its tampering Moreover, as per the pleadings, they have given names of several teachers who were not competent and have evaluated the answer sheet; but when they were knowing this fact, why they kept mum and waited for the result of Main Examination. iii) The Petitioners after knowing the entire system of evaluation of answer-sheets in the month of June/July, 2024 itself; were sitting quietly awaiting the result of the Main examination and when the result of written examination was published and they failed to see their names in the list of selected candidates; they knocked the door of this Court. iii) The Petitioners after knowing the entire system of evaluation of answer-sheets in the month of June/July, 2024 itself; were sitting quietly awaiting the result of the Main examination and when the result of written examination was published and they failed to see their names in the list of selected candidates; they knocked the door of this Court. It goes without saying that the specific case of the Petitioners is that they came to know about the evaluation system from the various newspapers, relevant part of which are annexed with the respective writ applications; and all are of the period between June-July 2024. iv) As per the pleadings the writ Petitioners have made allegation against the Office in-charge of the Police Station for not logging FIR. Allegation of demand of money against a particular person is also made in these applications. It has further submitted that the experts involved in the evaluation process are not supposed to go anywhere during the period of evaluation but the then Secretary himself was also a part of the said excursion. Thus, there are allegation against several individuals; but for the reasons best known to the Petitioners, they have not made all those persons as party respondents; on this score alone for non- joinder of necessary parties, both these writ applications deserve to be dismissed. v) The selected candidates of the “Main examination” has not been made party-respondents who will certainly be affected by any decision of this Court if the entire examination is cancelled. [Ref.: Paras-36 & 39 of Vishal Ashok Thorat & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Shri Ram Bapu Fate & Ors. (2020) 18 SCC 673 ] vi) It is also a well settled principle that when the candidates have participated in the process of examination and not challenged till the results were declared, they are not entitled for any relief. (Refer case of Pradeep Kr. Ray & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Kr. Pandey & Ors. , [ (2015) 11 SCC 493 ] As aforesaid, in the instant case, the JPSC has taken a decision of a particular mode for evaluating the answer-sheets which the petitioners came to know in the month of June-July, 2024 but they sat over the matter and when they became unsuccessful, they challenged the same before this Court. In the case of Amlan Jyoti Borooh Vs. State of Assam & Ors. In the case of Amlan Jyoti Borooh Vs. State of Assam & Ors. , [ (2009) 3 SCC 227 ] , it has been held that a candidate who had subjected himself to a faulty selection process could not question it later on. (Ref. para-32). 12. The judgment rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 2988 of 2025, it appears that the above-referred judgments in the preceding paragraph has not been considered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court where the specific question of laches has been dealt with. 13. Likewise, the case of Somesh Thapliyal & Anr. Vs. V.C., H.N.B. Garhwal University & Anr. (supra), relied upon by the petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 3185 of 2025 is also not applicable in view of the fact that in the said case, the facts were different and the candidates were already appointed after approval of recommendation made by the Selection Committee, as such, the same is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Conclusion: 14. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, both these writ applications do not have any merit and accordingly, the same are hereby dismissed. 15. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands closed.