Jharkhand High Court
Hulash Nayak vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 6 July, 2021
Author: S.N.Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 5502 of 2018
----------
Hulash Nayak. ... ... ... ...Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... ... ...Respondents
With
W.P.(S) No.5618 of 2018
Sanjay Kumar. ... ... ... ...Petitioner
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... ... ...Respondents
----------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK
(Through: Video Conferencing)
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate.
[ In W.P.(S) No. 5502 of 2018]
: Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate.
[In W.P. (S) No. 5618 of 2018]
For the J.P.S.C. : Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, Advocate.
-----------
05/ 06.07.2021 Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned Counsel appears in W.P.(S) No.5502 of 2018 and
Mr. Binod Singh, learned Counsel appears in W.P. (S) No. 5618 of 2018 on behalf of the petitioners.
The petitioners have approached this Court with a common prayer for evaluation of their OMR answer-sheet of paper- I which relates to appointment to the post of Commercial Tax Officer through Jharkhand Financial Service (Limited) Competitive Examination pursuant to Advt. No.10/2010 published by J.P.S.C. Though there are couple of prayers in the writ petitions but learned Counsel for petitioners confined their prayer for evaluation of the OMR answer sheet of paper-I. It has been strenuously argued by Mr. Singh that issue regarding evaluation of answer sheet is no more res integra. The same fell for consideration before a Co-ordinate Bench and also before Division Bench of this Court. The matter went up-to the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2951 of 2018 after considering every aspect of the matter has clearly observed thus:
" Ultimately, the names of the two petitioners were not there in the final merit list published by the Jharkhand Academic Council on the 2 ground that, in their case Paper-I was rejected by the computer as the petitioners did not darken the circles that they were supposed to darken so that the computer would recognize their roll numbers.
Given the fact that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are candidates of outstanding merit, as has been found from the marks obtained in paper No.11, we are of the view that this technical mistake on their part of non darkening of circles should not stand in the way of their appointment. We are doing this given the special facts of these cases. We, therefore, direct the respondents to appoint petitioner No.1 and 2 in the vacant posts of Trained Graduate Teachers within a period of four weeks from today.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed."
Mr. Indrajit Sinha and Mr. Binod Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners further argued that in case of one Santosh Kumar Singh Roll No.10100094 whose case was similar to that of the petitioners, J.P.S.C. evaluated OMR sheet and after that said Santosh Kumar Singh was selected and even appointed. However, in the case of the petitioners different stand is being taken by the J.P.S.C. on the ground that already results have been published and selection process is over.
Learned Counsel further argued that aforesaid plea taken by J.P.S.C. was already considered by the Division Bench as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the facts and circumstances of the case the order was passed for evaluation of the OMR sheet.
Mr. Sanjay Piprawal, learned Counsel appearing for the J.P.S.C. vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and submits that at this stage OMR sheet cannot be evaluated as already the process of appointment is over and if any step is taken it will amount to opening of the Pandora Box.
Under such circumstance, even if the submission of the learned Counsel for the J.P.S.C. is accepted, this Court fails to understand why the same ratio was not applied in the case of Santosh Kumar Singh whereas the contentions of the petitioner have been denied by the respondent-J.P.S.C., I hereby direct the Secretary, J.P.S.C. as well as Controller of Examination, J.P.S.C. to send the original evaluated answer sheet of Santosh Kumar Singh whose Roll number is 10100094 (Advertisement No.10/2010) in a sealed cover before this Court.
3
Let it be made clear that if it is found that the answer sheet of Santosh Kumar Singh were evaluated, the petitioners shall also be entitled for the same treatment.
Respondents are also directed to file specific reply to the contention raised in the rejoinder filed by the petitioners.
Put up these cases on 03.08.2021.
[Dr. S.N.Pathak,J] P.K.S.