Patna High Court - Orders
Niranjan Singh Yadav vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 25 July, 2014
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.43 of 2014
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3777 of 2012
======================================================
Niranjan Singh Yadav, Son of Raj Balam Prasad resident of village -
Chakahan, P.O. Shyam Kauriya, Police Station - Isuapur, District - Saran at
Chapra
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Labour, New Secretariat,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Chairman, the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Near Veterinary
College, Government of Bihar, Patna - 1
3. The Secretary, the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Near Veterinary
College, Government of Bihar, Patna
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate
For Resp. Nos 2 & 3 : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri, AAG- XI
Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG-XI
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
C.A.V ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
7 -07-2014 We have heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned
Counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri,
learned Additional Advocate General No. XI, for the State.
Also heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned Counsel,
appearing on behalf of Bihar Staff Selection Commission
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated
Patna High Court LPA No.43 of 2014 (7) dt.25-07-2014
2/5
2nd of May, 2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3777 of 2012, by
the learned Single Judge, whereby the relief sought for,
viz, seeking his selection to the post of Instructor in the
trade of fitter or in the alternative, he be given the entire
tabulation chart and his answer sheet with question paper
so that he may himself verify the genuineness of the entire
selection process, has been refused.
3. Pursuant to the Advertisement No. 2307 of
2007 (Annexure - I to the writ petition), the appellant
applied for the post of ITI Instructor/Fitter under the
backward class category. He was declared successful in
the written test and was called for the interview. However,
he was not declared finally successful. The appellant,
thereafter, under the RTI Act, asked for his answer sheet,
question paper and the answer key from the Bihar Staff
Selection Commission (hereinafter called the
"Commission"). The commission provided the appellant the
marks obtained by him in the written test (50.15) and of
the interview (14.00). He was also provided with the list of
successful candidates. He was not given the copy of the
answer sheet as the matter was pending in the Supreme
Court. The information provided by the Commission did
not satisfy the appellant and he, therefore, preferred an
appeal, seeking certified as well as original copy of his
Patna High Court LPA No.43 of 2014 (7) dt.25-07-2014
3/5
answer sheet. Solved answer sheet was not given to the
appellant, but he was provided with the model answer and
the question paper.
4. The appellant, therefore, argued before the
learned Single Judge, on the basis of information so
provided to him, that he was not marked properly and that
he had apprehensions that perhaps, the entire process of
selection was irregular.
5. The Commission, in its counter affidavit,
stated that six persons were selected in the backward class
category. One handicapped person was accommodated as
against the sixth vacancy, because of 3 per cent
reservation for physically challenged candidates.
6. The appellant secured a total of 64.15 marks
(Written Test - 50.15 + Interview - 14.00); whereas the
last candidate in the category, who was placed at 5th
position secured a total of 75 marks.
7. The appellant, on the basis of his self-
assessment, was of the view that he should have been
given 55.4 marks in the written Test and when the same
would have been added up to the marks secured in the
interview, his total marking should have been 69.04
(55.4+14).
8. Assuming the self-assessment of the appellant
Patna High Court LPA No.43 of 2014 (7) dt.25-07-2014
4/5
to be true and correct, then also, he would have been left
behind the fifth successful candidate.
9. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, right
in holding that it was wholly unnecessary to call for the
entire tabulation register or direct for re-evaluation.
10. Let it be noted that the advertisement was
issued in the year 2007, examination was held in 2008,
interview held in 2009-2010 and final recommendations
were made on 26.02.2010.
11. During the hearing of the appeal, it was
argued, on behalf of the appellant, that in the
Advertisement No. 2307, the rule set forth for marking was
1 mark for right answer and deduction of 0.5 marks for one
wrong answer. However, in the question paper which was
given to the candidates, deduction of 0.2 marks was fixed
for an incorrect answer. It was argued that the rules of the
game was changed later, which was not permissible.
12. The aforesaid submission of the appellant
has been noted only to be rejected, because the question
paper (instructions/disclosure) was never put to challenge
and even if the rule was changed later, it has not caused
any prejudice to the appellant, inasmuch as the pattern of
marking was already made available to the candidates
before they actually participated in the test and it has not
Patna High Court LPA No.43 of 2014 (7) dt.25-07-2014
5/5
been the case of the appellant that he was unaware of the
pattern of marking before he attempted the answers in the
written test, which was objective in nature.
13. Thus far and no further. There is no reason
why a quietus be not given to the selection already made
and, more so, when the successful candidates were not
made parties in the writ petition.
14. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal
is severely wanting in merits.
15. Dismissed but with no order as to costs.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J.)
I. A. Ansari, J.:
(I. A. Ansari, J.) Jagdish/ NAFR U √ T