Patna High Court
Krishna Murari Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 February, 2015
Author: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Bench: Chakradhari Sharan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.887 of 2014
IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3920 of 2014
===========================================================
1. Krishna Murari Mishra, Son of Late Vishwanath Mishra,
Resident of Village Banua, P.S. Meenapur, District Muzaffarpur,
at Present, Assistant Teacher, Rajkiya Krit Nathuni Bhagat High
School, Muzaffarpur
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human
Resources Department, Bihar, Patna
2. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna
3. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur
4. The Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna
through its Secretary
5. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road,
Patna
6. The Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission,
Bailey Road, Patna
.... .... Respondents
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Tara Nath Jha, Advocate
For Resp. Nos 1-3 : Mr. Ajit Pratap Singh, Standing Counsel No. 15
For Resp. Nos. 4-6 : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI
AND
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN
SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI) Date: 11-02-2015 Pursuant to the advertisement No. 1 of 2007, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Headmaster, in all Nationalized Project High Schools, in the Patna High Court LPA No.887 of 2014 dt.11-02-2015 2/6 State of Bihar, the appellant herein applied and, in course of time, appeared in the written examination, but did not succeed on the ground that he had not secured 40 per cent marks in the written examinations; whereas a candidate, in order to be successful in the written examination, was required to secure, at least, 40 per cent marks.
2. Challenging the result of the written examination on the ground that since he had been working for the last about 28 years as a Teacher, it is not believable that he would not secure even 40 per cent marks in any of the two papers in the written examinations, which had been held by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'), for filling up the post of Headmaster, the appellant approached this Court with a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to CWJC No. 3920 of 2014, seeking, inter alia, the following relief, "For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction, directions the respondents to re-examine the answer sheets of the petitioner as he appeared in the written examination held by Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna in response to the advertisement No.1/2007 for appointment on the post of Headmaster in a nationalized and Project High School in the State of Bihar and Patna High Court LPA No.887 of 2014 dt.11-02-2015 3/6 further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to hold the interview of the petitioner, if the petitioner succeeds in the written examination and to make appointment of the petitioner on the post of Headmaster in accordance with law with all consequential benefits."
3. Considering the fact that as per the relevant rules governing the selection process, which is conducted by the Commission, re-evaluation of answer scripts is not permissible, but retotalling of the marks, obtained by a candidate, may be sought for, a learned single Judge of this Court took the view that the remedy of the writ petition (i.e., the appellant herein) lied in approaching the Commission for retotalling of the marks obtained by him and not for re- evaluation.
4. As the relief, which had been sought for, in the writ petition, required re-evaluation of the answer scripts and such a prayer would, if allowed, have been contrary to the relevant rules of the Commission, the learned single Judge, by order, dated 21.04.2014, dismissed the writ petition.
5. Aggrieved by the order, dated 21.04.2014, the appellant is, in appeal, before us.
6. We have heard Mr. Tara Nath Jha, learned Counsel, for the appellant, and Mr. Ajit Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel No. 15, appearing on behalf of respondent Patna High Court LPA No.887 of 2014 dt.11-02-2015 4/6 Nos. 1 to 3. We have also heard Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 6.
7. It has been submitted, on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant, that it is not believable that having teaching experience of 28 years, the appellant would not have been able to secure even 40 per cent marks in any of the two papers of the written examinations, conducted by the Commission, for the posts of Headmaster.
8. While considering the above submission, it needs to be noted that the written test was held on 07.12.2013 and the final result thereof was published on 05.04.2014 and, in terms of the rules governing the examinations conducted by the Commission, the appellant herein could have applied, but did not apply, for retotalling of marks; what he had sought for, in the writ petition, was a direction to re-examine the answer scripts afresh.
9. It is of great significance to note that the relevant rules do not, admittedly, provide for re-examination or re- evaluation of answer scripts; rather, the rules provide for merely retotalling of the marks and since retotalling of marks had not been sought for, the learned single Judge did not interfere with the result on the ground that the selection process has to be conducted in conformity with the rules relevant on that date.
Patna High Court LPA No.887 of 2014 dt.11-02-2015 5/6
10. We do not find any reason to disagree with the learned single Judge that a selection process has to be conducted in conformity with the relevant rules or proceeded for selection process. The relevant rules do not provide for re- evaluation or re-examination of answer scripts, but only for retotalling of marks and, so long as the rules remain unchallenged and/or unchanged, no direction could have been given, and has rightly not been given, in the writ petition, for re-examination or re-evaluation of the appellant's answer scripts.
11. Another significant aspect of this appeal is that notwithstanding the fact that re-evaluation or re-examination of the answer scripts was not permitted, the learned single Judge made it clear that the writ petitioner (i.e., the appellant herein) would remain free to apply for retotalling of the marks and the Commission shall communicate result of retotalling of marks to the writ petitioner (i.e., the appellant herein), with copy of the answer scripts, within a period of three months.
12. On retotalling, the marks, obtained by the appellant, have remained unchanged; but on the basis of the copies of the answer scripts, it has been submitted before this Court, on behalf of the appellant, that his answer scripts may be perused by this Court.
13. We would not be inclined to undertake any such Patna High Court LPA No.887 of 2014 dt.11-02-2015 6/6 exercise as has been sought for on behalf of the appellant inasmuch as such an exercise would be impermissible when, in terms of the relevant rules, re-evaluation or re-examination of answer scripts is not permissible. This apart, this Court cannot act as an expert body and re-evaluate or re-examine the answer scripts for the purpose of assessing the correctness of the marks obtained by the writ petitioner- appellant.
14. Situated thus, we are clearly of the view that the writ petition was fully misconceived and has rightly been rejected.
15. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this appeal fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed.
16. No order as to costs.
(I. A. Ansari, J.) Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.: I agree.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Prabhakar Anand/-
U √