Jharkhand High Court
Rahul Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 30 March, 2022
Author: Ravi Ranjan
Bench: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 347 of 2021
------
1.Rahul Kumar, S/o Radheshyam Prasad, aged about 31 years, Vill: Chandandih, P.O.-Latehar, Dist-Latehar, 829206, Jharkhand.
2.Eman Safi, S/o Alijan Ansari, aged about 45 years, Vill: Harnad, P.O.: Karma, P.S.: Kasmar, Dist.-Bokaro- 827302, Jharkhand.
3.Prakash Kumar, S/o Babu Lal Ji, age 31 years, R/o H.No. 16, Kishunpur, PO + PS-Chatra, Dist-Chatra- 825401, Jharkhand.
4.Raj Kumar Minz S/O Late Sheo Bux Minz Age 43 Years R/O MIG A/18 Harmu Housing Colony, PO- Harmu, PS-Argora, Harmu, Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand.
...... Appellants/ Petitioners
Versus
1.State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi-834004.
2.Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S-Dhurwa, District Ranchi-834004.
3.Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, P.O.-GPO, P.S-Kotwali, District-Ranchi- 834001.
4.The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, P.O.-GPO, P.S- Kotwali, District-Ranchi-834001.
5.The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, P.O.-GPO, P.S-Kotwali, District-Ranchi-834001.
6.Sangram Murmu, aged about 32 years, son of Sri Salkhan Murmu, resident of Mission Gali, Opp. Premsons Motors, Kanke Road, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Gonda, District-Ranchi-834001.
Respondents/Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD 2
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Shubhashis R. Soren, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C to AG
For the JPSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Adv
-------
Oral Judgment
Order No. 04: Dated 30th March, 2022:
With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.
2. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 07.06.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 494 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge, refusing to interfere with Resolution issued vide Memo No. 5562 dated 19.04.2017 by which it was decided by the State Government that the candidates who have secured minimum qualifying marks in their respective category shall be considered selected for Main Combined Civil Services Examination, 2016 in pursuance to Advertisement No. 23 of 2016, dismissed the writ petition.
3. The brief facts of the case, as per pleadings made in the writ petition, which require to be enumerated read as under:
3
On 17.05.2015, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short 'JPSC') which is the examining body for conducting competitive examination for Combined Civil Services for the State of Jharkhand, came out with notification for 6th Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination, 2016 vide Advertisement No. 01 of 2015, which was later on cancelled and a fresh advertisement being Advertisement No. 23/2016 dated 06.10.2016 was published for filling up 326 vacancies.
Clause 13(i) of the advertisement stipulates the minimum qualifying marks which the candidates have to obtain in the Preliminary Test as well as in the Main Examination and Clause 13(ii) stipulates that on the basis of Preliminary Test, candidates of 15 times category-wise vacancy shall be shortlisted for the Main Examination.
The Preliminary Test for 6th Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination, 2016 was conducted on 18.12.2016, wherein the writ petitioners participated along with other candidates. The result of Preliminary Test was published on 23.02.2017, in which, total 5138 candidates were shortlisted. After publication of said result, the JPSC issued one press release on 4 02.03.2017, in which, it was clarified that: (i).candidates totaling 15 times of the vacant posts and those who have obtained similar marks have been shortlisted for the Main Examination; (ii).there is no benefit of reservation applicable in the Preliminary Examination; and (iii).no category-wise cut-off marks have been notified.
The aforesaid result of Preliminary Examination was challenged by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1864 of 2017 [Deb Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors].
However, during pendency of the writ petition, the State of Jharkhand issued another Resolution as contained in Memo No. 5562 dated 19.04.2017, whereby it was decided that (i).all such candidates belonging to the reserved categories who obtained marks are equal or more than that of the last placed candidate in the list of fifteen times of the shortlisted unreserved candidates (barring specially abled category) shall be considered successful for the main examination (ii) the earlier resolution dated 13.04.2016 prescribing the ratio of 15 times of the notified vacancy shall be deemed to be relaxed to the aforesaid extent as stated in (i) above.
The learned Co-ordinate Single Bench disposed of the said writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1864 of 2017 5 taking into consideration Notification No. 5562 dated 19.04.2017 by which decision was taken that all such candidates belonging to the reserved categories who obtained marks equal or more than that of the last placed candidate in the list of fifteen times of the shortlisted unreserved candidates (barring specially abled category) shall be considered successful for the main examination as also by considering the submission advanced on behalf of State to the effect that in view of such policy decision of the State, the JPSC is required to publish the amended result and as such the learned Co- ordinate Single Bench directed the JPSC to take steps for publication of amended results in terms of notification.
After passing of such order by this Court, the amended result was published by the JPSC on 11.08.2017 wherein 6103 candidates were shortlisted for the Main Examination.
The State Government again issued circular dated 12.02.2018 by which it was decided that those candidates who have secured minimum qualifying marks [40% for General Category; 36.5% for Backward Class; 34 % for Backward Class-I and 32 % for Scheduled Caste/Tribe and Female Category] as 6 mentioned in the circular dated 27.11.2012 will be deemed to be selected for the Main Examination. The said circular was challenged before the writ Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1452 of 2018 (Pankaj Kumar Pandey &Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Others), which was dismissed vide order dated 18.05.2018. Thereafter, the JPSC again published the second revised result on 06.08.2018.
However, the order passed in the said W.P. (S) No. 1452 of 2018 was challenged before Division Bench of this Court by filing L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018 (Pankaj Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Others) and during the pendency of the said appeal, the JPSC announced the date for Main examination scheduled from 28.01.2019 to 01.02.2019, which was brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Division Bench but no stay was granted, as such Main examination was conducted. The said L.P.A. was allowed vide order dated 21.10.2019 and the resolution dated 12.02.2018 and also the consequent revised results published by the JPSC on 06.08.2018 declaring 34,634 candidates successful, was quashed. It was further directed that since the written examinations have already been held, the respondent-JPSC is directed to publish the results of 7 the Main Examination, confined to the candidates, declared successful in its first revised results published on 11.08.2017.
The order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 726 of 2020 [Dipak Kumar & Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] but the same was dismissed in terms of order dated 10.01.2020.
Accordingly, the result of Main Examination was pronounced on 15.02.2020. After publication of the result of Main Examination, interview was conducted w.e.f. 24.02.2020 and the final result for recommendation for appointment of the successful candidate was published by the JPSC on 21.04.2020. The recommendation made by the JPSC has finally been accepted and candidates have been selected and appointed.
In the backdrop of these facts, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced before the learned Single Judge that first revised result was published whereby 6103 candidates were declared successful for Main Examination thereafter the State came up with Memo No. 1153 dated 12.02.2018, which was quashed by 8 Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.10.2019 in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018. Further, by referring to Memo No. 1153 dated 12.02.2018, it was submitted that the said notification lost its effect since L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018 was allowed whereby notification No. 1153 dated 12.02.2018 was quashed and S.L.P. preferred against the said order also stood disposed of, as such it gave occasion to the petitioner to challenge notification dated 19.04.2017 and thereafter writ petition was filed on 10.02.2020. It was further averred that writ petition was filed before declaration of result of the Main Examination, as such the writ petition is maintainable. It was further submitted that in view of observations made by Co-ordinate Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018, the impugned resolution dated 19.04.2017 is liable to be quashed and set aside.
The respondent-JPSC, opposing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that circular dated 19.04.2017 had already been considered by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1864 of 2017 and in terms of order passed by Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018, which has attained finality in S.L.P. No. 726 of 2020, the 9 JPSC published the result of Main Examination, as such there was no occasion to file this writ petition.
The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 1864 of 2017 [Deb Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] as also order passed in W.P. (S) No. 1452 of 2018 (Pankaj Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Others), and order passed in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018, dismissed the writ petition which is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal.
4. Mr. Shubhashis R. Soren, learned counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the fact in right prospective, reason being that, the writ petitioners had raised the issue of impropriety of the decision taken by the State Government vide resolution as contained in Memo No. 5562 dated 19.04.2017, whereby decision was taken that all such candidates belonging to the reserved categories who obtained marks equal or more than that of the last placed candidate in the list of fifteen times of the shortlisted unreserved candidates (barring specially abled category) shall be considered successful for the Main Examination and thereby relaxed the earlier resolution dated 13.04.2016 declaring the ratio of 15 10 times of the notified vacancies. According to the learned counsel, the relaxation given to one or the other candidates belonging to the reserved category who obtained more or equal marks than that of the last selected candidates in the list of fifteen times of the shortlisted unreserved candidates (barring specially abled category) was considered successful and thereby the basic object of declaring the candidates in the preliminary examination in the ratio of 15 times of the notified vacancies as per resolution dated 13.04.2016 has been relaxed and by doing so the candidate belonging to reserved category candidate has been given due weightage which finally resulted into increase in number of reserved category candidate who participated in the Main Examination which cannot be said to be a proper decision of the State authority, but the learned Single Judge has not considered that aspect of the matter and dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the impugned order requires interference by this Court.
5. None appears for the State.
6. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondents-JPSC has submitted that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, reason being that, the notification dated 11 19.04.2017 was brought to the notice of learned Co- ordinate Single Bench of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1864 of 2017 [Deb Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] wherein the preliminary examination result published on 23.02.2017, in which, 5138 candidates were selected for Main Examination was challenged. Before the writ Court the State came up with Resolution as contained in Memo No. 5562 dated 19.04.2017 and after taking into consideration the aforesaid decision, the learned Co- ordinate Single Bench passed direction upon the JPSC to publish the amended result. Thereafter, result was published on 11.08.2017, in which 6103 candidates were declared successful. Further, the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018 [Pankaj Kumar Pandey & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors] had directed for publication of final result. The order passed in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018 was challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 726 of 2020 which was dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2020 and thereafter, the JPSC in compliance of order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in LPA No. 399 of 2018 published the final result and thereafter the candidates who have found to be finally successful were issued offer of appointment.
12
However, at this juncture, submission was made that final selection list since was questioned before the writ Court in W.P. (S) 1468 of 2020 and analogous cases wherein entire selection list was quashed and set aside with a direction upon the JPSC to prepare a fresh merit list, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 201 of 2021 and analogous cases, as such fresh merit list was published by the JPSC.
In the backdrop of these facts, submission has been made that since the learned Single Judge taking into consideration the order passed in Deb Kumar Case [W.P. (S) No. 1864 of 2017] had dismissed the writ petition, which cannot be said to suffer from any error, as such the instant intra-court appeal is fit to be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also finding recorded by learned Single Judge.
8. Admittedly, the 6th Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination, 2016 was set at motion by issuance of advertisement, being Advertisement No. 23 of 2016 whereby candidates were invited to participate in the preliminary examination. Accordingly the 13 candidates appeared in the preliminary examination, result of which was published on 23.02.2017, in which, total 5138 candidates were shortlisted. But, after publication of the result, the JPSC issued one press release on 02.03.2017, in which, it was clarified that the candidates totaling 15 times the vacant posts and those who have obtained similar marks, have been shortlisted for the Main Examination with further clarification that benefit of reservation is not applicable in the Preliminary Examination and no category-wise cut-off marks have been notified. The consequence of such decision was that the petitioners were declared successful and the last candidate who got selected in Preliminary Examination obtained 206 marks out of 400 marks. The candidates of 15 times of the advertised posts were declared successful in the preliminary examination to appear for the Main Examination. Thus, the ratio of 15 times of the vacancies for short-listing the candidates for Main Examination was decided in pursuance to resolution dated 13.04.2016, however, the aforesaid result of Preliminary Examination was challenged by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1864 of 2017 [Deb Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors].
14
However, during pendency of the writ petition, the State of Jharkhand came out with resolution as contained in Memo No. 5562 dated 19.04.2017, whereby it was decided that all such candidates belonging to the reserved categories who obtained marks equal or more than that of the last placed candidate in the list of fifteen times of the shortlisted unreserved candidates (barring specially abled category) shall be considered successful for the main examination and thereby the earlier resolution dated 13.04.2016 prescribing the ratio of 15 times of the notified vacancy shall be deemed to be relaxed to the aforesaid extent. Accordingly, the result was published on 11.08.2017 on the basis of amended resolution wherein 6103 candidates were shortlisted for the Main Examination. The Main Examination was cancelled twice and vide memo no. 1153 dated 12.02.2018 Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi issued the said memo whereby it was decided that in the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination the candidates who have secured minimum qualifying marks [40% for General Category; 36.5% for Backward Class; 34 % for Backward Class and 32 % for Scheduled Caste/Tribe and Female Category] as 15 mentioned in the circular dated 27.11.2012 will be deemed to be selected for the Main Examination. The said circular was challenged before the writ Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1452 of 2018 (Pankaj Kumar Pandey &Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Others), which was dismissed vide order dated 18.05.2018. The JPSC, after disposal of the said writ petition, published the second revised result of preliminary examination on 06.08.2018 and also announced the date for Main Examination. The order passed in the said W.P. (S) No. 1452 of 2018 was challenged before Division Bench of this Court by filing L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018 (Pankaj Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Others) however, during the pendency of the said appeal, the JPSC announced the date for Main examination scheduled to be held from 28.01.2019 to 01.02.2019, which was brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Division Bench but no stay was granted, as such Main Examination was conducted. The said L.P.A. was allowed vide order dated 21.10.2019 observing therein that since the written examinations have already been held by the respondent-JPSC, the respondent-JPSC was directed to publish the results of the Main Examination, confined to the candidates, 16 declared successful in the first revised results published on 11.08.2017 and resolution dated 12.02.2018 and also the consequent revised results published by the JPSC on 06.08.2018 declaring 34,634 candidates successful were quashed.
The order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 726 of 2020 [Dipak Kumar & Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] but, the same was dismissed in terms of order dated 10.01.2020.
9. Learned Single Judge, on the backdrop of these facts, has refused to quash resolution dated 19.04.2017 recording the reason as under:
"11.In light of the above facts and the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the only question requires to be answered in the facts of this writ petition as to whether in view of the order of the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018, which has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is further scope of any interference by this Court in this writ petition or not. In W.P.(S) No. 1452 of 2018 (Pankaj Kumar Pandey & -24- W.P. (S) No. 494 of 2020 & other tagged matters another v. State of Jharkhand & Others), the prayer was made for quashing the circular being memo no. 1153 dated 12.02.2018, whereby, it was decided that the candidates, who have secured minimum qualifying marks in their respective categories shall be selected for Mains examination in the 6th Combined Civil Service Examination in pursuance to Advertisement no.23/2016. The learned Single Judge 17 considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 1 and the judgment in the case of Pitta Naveen Kumar & Ors. v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 261 and other judgments came to the conclusion that no case is made out by the petitioners for interference and dismissed the writ petition.
The same was tested before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.399 of 2018. The said order is on record as Annexure-8 at page 63 of this writ petition. The circular dated 12.02.2018 has been considered in detail by the Division Bench in paragraph 21 of the order of the L.P.A. In paragraphs 23 and 24 of the said order, the Division Bench has also considered the grounds for issuance of the said resolution. Article 320 of the Constitution of India has been considered by the Division Bench at paragraph 27 of the said judgment and in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pitta Naveen Kumar (supra) and the judgment rendered in the case of P. Mohanan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2007) 9 SCC 497, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that so far as the earlier resolution of the State Government as contained in memo no.5562 dated 19.04.2017 is concerned, the same was approved by the High Court in Deb Kumar's case (supra) decided on 25.07.2017 which was followed by the JPSC by publishing the revised result on 11.08.2017 declaring 6103 candidates successful for appearing in the Mains examination and the resolution dated 12.02.2018 issued by the State -25- W.P. (S) No. 494 of 2020 & other tagged matters Government was quashed by the Division Bench and directed the JPSC to publish the result of the Mains examination, confined to the candidates, declared successful in the first revised results published on 11.08.2017 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside. The said judgment of the Division Bench was challenged in S.L.P.(C) No.726 of 2020 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.01.2020 has been pleased to dismiss the said S.L.P. In light of the judgment 18 passed by the Division Bench, the JPSC published the result of the Mains examination, confined to the candidates, declared successful in the first revised results published on 11.08.2017, which was affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the finality attained with regard to the said order and after dismissal of the S.L.P., this writ petition has been filed. Accordingly, no relief can be extended to the petitioners in this writ petition. The writ petition is misconceived which is fit to be dismissed with cost, but the Court is not imposing the cost, considering the petitioners are aspirants of the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination. The Court also finds force in the argument of Mr. Gadodia, learned counsel for respondent no.6 in light of the facts that the aforesaid I.As. have not been pressed and the petitioners have already abundantly claimed without the leave of the Court, which has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 10 of the judgment passed in the case of Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair v. Narayanan Nair & Ors. (supra).
12.In light of these discussions, the point is answered in negative. No relief can be extended to the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition [W.P.(S) No. 494 of 2020] stands dismissed.
10. The learned Single Judge, since has dismissed the writ petition mainly on the ground of order passed in W.P. (S) No. 1864 of 2017 [Deb Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] and L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018, therefore, the factual aspect pertaining to the order passed in Deb Kumar Case as also L.P.A. No.399 of 2018 is required to be referred first.
11. So far as issue involved in Deb Kumar Case is concerned, the result of preliminary examination which was conducted on 18.12.2016, in which, 5138 19 candidates were shortlisted for Main Examination was the subject of challenge. The State came out with the Resolution No. 5562 dated 19.04.2017 by which decision was taken to declare that all such candidates belonging to reserved category, whose marks are equal or more than that of the last selected candidates in the list of fifteen times of the shortlisted unreserved candidates (barring specially abled category) shall be considered successful for the Main Examination. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of taking into consideration the aforesaid decision of the State Government as contained in Memo No. 5562 dated 19.04.2017 as also considering the stand of the State for publication of result by the JPSC in terms of such policy decision and as such direction was passed upon JPSC to take steps to publish the amended result in terms of the said resolution/notification.
The relevant portion of the judgment rendered in Deb Kumar case is reproduced herein below:
"10.Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties this court is of the considered view that grievances of the petitioner has already been redressed. It appears that State has acted in terms of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and following the guidelines and observations have come out with the aforesaid Notification. The amended Notification of the State 20 of Jharkhand is fully in accordance with law and needs no interference by this Court
11.In the circumstances, I hereby direct respondents - Jharkhand Public Service Commission to take steps for publication of amended result in terms of Notification. It is made clear that this is a serious issue as it relates to fate of thousands of aspirants who have appeared in the examination conducted by JPSC and as such it is expected that State as well as JPSC shall take immediate steps so that amended results, in terms of Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Notification issued by the State, may be published as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of"
12. After passing of such order in W.P. (S) No. 1864 of 2017, amended result was published on 11.08.2017 declaring 6103 candidates successful for appearing in the Main Examination.
Thus, it is evident from the order passed by Co- ordinate learned Single Bench in W.P. (S) No. 1864 of 2017 that direction was passed upon the JPSC taking into consideration the decision of the State Government as contained in Resolution dated 19.04.2017 and in pursuance thereto result was published on 11.08.2017, in which 6103 was declared successful.
13. Thereafter, another issue was raised by filing W.P. (S) No. 1452 of 2018 (Pankaj Kumar Pandey &Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Others), wherein the resolution 21 issued under Memo No. 1153 dated 12.02.2018 was questioned by which it was decided that the candidates who have secured minimum qualifying marks in their respective category shall be considered selected in Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination (PT), 2016, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.05.2018.
The JPSC again published revised result on 06.08.2018 declaring 34,634 candidates successful for appearing in the Main Examination.
14. The order dated 18.05.2018 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1452 of 2018 (Pankaj Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Others), was challenged by filing intra- court appeal being L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018. However, during pendency of the said intra-court appeal the JPSC announced the date for Main Examination scheduled to be held from 28.01.2019 to 01.02.2019, which was brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Division Bench but no stay was granted, as such Main examination was conducted. The Co-ordinate Division Bench, taking into consideration the fact in entirety as also considering the fact that date of Main examination has already been published, allowed the said intra-court appeal with direction upon the JPSC to publish the results of the Main Examination, confined to the candidates, declared 22 successful in its first revised results published on 11.08.2017.
The relevant portion of the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018 is reproduced hereinbelow:
"34.So far as the earlier resolution of the State Government, as contained in memo No. 5562 dated 19.4.2017 is concerned, the same was approved by the High Court in Deb Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., decided on 25.7.2017, which was followed by the JPSC, by publishing the revised results on 11.8.2017, declaring 6,103 candidates successful for appearing in the Main Examinations. There is no merit in the submission of the learned Advocate General that since the decision in Deb Kumar's case has not been challenged by the appellants and the said decision has attained its finality, it is no more open to the appellants to challenge the impugned Judgment of the Writ Court, passed in W.P.(S) No. 1452 of 2018, which has only followed the aforesaid decision in Deb Kumar's case.
35.For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Resolution as contained in memo No. 1153 dated 12.2.2018, issued by the State Government, in its department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, as also the consequent revised results, published by the JPSC on 6.8.2018, declaring 34,634 candidates successful are, hereby, quashed.
36.Since the written examinations have already been held by the respondent JPSC, the respondent JPSC is directed to publish the results of the Main Examinations, confined to the candidates, declared successful in its first revised results published on 11.8.2017.
37.Consequently, the impugned Judgment dated 18.5.2018, passed by the Writ Court, in W.P.(S) No. 1452 of 2018, is hereby, set aside.23
38.This Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid terms. The pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of accordingly."
15. The order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 726 of 2020 [Dipak Kumar & Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] but the same was dismissed in terms of order dated 10.01.2020.
16. It is, therefore, evident from order dated 21.10.2019 passed in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018 that the result of the Main Examination was published by the JPSC on the direction passed by the Coordinate Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018.
17. The writ petitioner had questioned the notification dated 19.04.2017 after order passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 399 of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.10.2019 by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 494 of 2020 on 10.02.2020 i.e. after the order passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order 21.10.2019 as also the S.L.P. being S.L.P. (Civil) No. 726 of 2020, which was dismissed on 10.01.2020.
24
18. In the backdrop of these facts and discussions made herein above, the question which is required to be answered by this Court is as to "Whether raising the issue of legality and propriety of the notification dated 19.04.2017, after order being passed by learned Co-ordinate Single Bench in W.P.(S) No. 1864 of 2017 [Deb Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors] and L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018 being affirmed in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 726 of 2020 [Dipak Kumar & Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors], can be said to be proper?"
19. Admitted fact herein is that notification dated 19.04.2017 was well within the knowledge of the writ petitioner since it is admitted case of the writ petitioner that they have come under the consideration zone to participate in the Main Examination after publication of the second revised result i.e., admittedly after the notification dated 19.04.2017 but the writ petitioner chosen not to challenge the said notification rather participated in the Main Examination.
Further, the result of Main Examination which was not being challenged, is now being challenged in the garb of impropriety of notification dated 19.04.2017, which cannot be said to be proper on the part of the writ 25 petitioner since the JPSC has published the result on the basis of direction passed by learned Co-ordinate Division Bench in L.P.A No. 399 of 2018 which has attained finality after order being passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 726 of 2020 vide order dated 10.01.2020. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration these aspects of the matter and after considering the order passed by the Co-ordinate Single Bench in Deb Kumar Case [W.P. (S) No. 1864 of 2017] as also in Dipak Kumar Case [L.P.A No. 399 of 2018] which was affirmed in S.L.P. (C) No. 726 of 2020 vide order dated 10.01.2020, refused to interfere with the notification dated 19.04.2017 on the ground that selection process which was followed by the JPSC in terms of notification dated 19.04.2017 has attained its finality, after considering the order passed by Co- ordinate Single Bench in Deb Kumar Case. The aforesaid part of the order cannot be said to suffer from any error reason being that when the Co-ordinate Single Bench of this Court has passed order under the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India based upon the concession of the State and the same will have binding effect upon the JPSC and all the participants of 6th Combined Civil Services Examination and the writ 26 petitioners who were also party to the selection process since they were declared qualified in second revised list so far as preliminary examination is concerned basis upon which they participated in the Main Examination, which was conducted on the basis of notification dated 19.04.2017 allowing the candidates by giving benefit of said notification.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Single Judge is correct in not interfering with notification dated 19.04.2017 also for the reason that the writ petitioners had participated in the process of selection so far as Preliminary Examination is concerned which was based upon the notification dated 19.04.2017 and once at the subsequent stage in the Main Examination/Interview/final merit list, if they were found to be unsuccessful, they have no right to question the notification dated 19.04.2017 which was meant for declaring the candidates successful in the preliminary examination.
If the writ petitioners were at all aggrieved they ought to have questioned the notification dated 19.04.2017 at the threshold but having not done so, rather, participated in the Preliminary Examination in which they were declared successful and in subsequent 27 stage of examination they were declared unsuccessful, have no to right to question the same.
20. In this regard, the law is well settled that once a candidate is found to be unsuccessful even at the subsequent stage he cannot be allowed to turn around and question any notification/circular/terms & conditions of the advertisement, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. G. Sarana Vs. University of Lucknow and Others (Supra), [(1976) 3 SCC 585] at paragraph 15, which reads as under:-
"15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood or bias as despite the fact that, the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the Committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the Committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal's case where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting:
"It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point."
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar 28 Shukla and Others [(1986) Suppl. SCC 285] has observed at pargraph 24, which reads as under :-
"24. Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination. The High Court itself has observed that the setting aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there. The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the District of Kanpur also. They were not responsible for the conduct of the examination."
Likewise, in Marripati Nagaraja and Others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others [(2007) 11 SCC 522[ the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at paragraph 19 as under :-
"19. .... ... ... Appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur. They did not question the validity of the said question of fixing of the said date before the appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from questioning the selection process."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Vijendra Kumar Verma Vs. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and Others [(2011) 1 SCC 150[ at paragraph 28 has held as under :-
"28.Besides, in K.H.Sirej v. High Court of Kerala in SCC paras 72 and 74 it was held that the candidates who participated in the interview with knowledge that for selection they had to secure prescribed minimum marks on being unsuccessful in interview could not turn around and challenge that the said provision of minimum marks was improper, said challenge is liable to be dismissed on the ground of estoppel."29
21. In the instant case also, the writ petitioners although were declared successful in the Preliminary Examination result of which was published on the basis of notification dated 19.04.2017 but when they were declared unsuccessful in the Main Examination or at later stage, they started to question notification dated 19.04.2017, the same cannot be allowed to be done by the writ petitioners.
22. Further, since the result of Main Examination was published in pursuance to the direction passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 399 of 2018, which has attained finality after disposal of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 726 of 2020 vide order dated 10.01.2020, in which the writ petitioners were found to be not successful and thereafter raising the issue of notification dated 19.04.2017 cannot be said to be proper on the part of the writ petitioner.
23. The issue framed by this Court is answered accordingly.
24. This Court, in the entirety of the facts and circumstance of the case and taking into the consideration the reason assigned by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, is of the 30 considered view that order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from any error.
25. Accordingly, the appeal fails, and is dismissed.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.) (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Alankar/ -
A.F.R.