Jharkhand High Court
Binod Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand & 222 Others on 28 July, 2022
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar, Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
LPA No. 198 of 2019
------
1. Binod Kumar, son of Chintamani Yadav, resident of Ashok Vihar (Officer's
Colony), PO & PS Giridih, District-Giridih.
2. Bikash Kumar Barnwal, son of Madan Prasad Barnwal, resident of Manodih,
PO- Kubri, PS- Dhanwar, District-Giridih .... ... Appellants
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand & 222 others .... .... Respondents
with
LPA No. 413 of 2019
1. Krishna Kumar, son of Sri Gango Mahto, resident of Sinuwari, PO Chepakla PS
Barkagaon, District- Hazaribagh
2. Manohar Karmali, son of Sri Lakshman Karmali, resident of Village Karkatta
Khurd, PO Chandipur, PS Kasmar, District Bokaro .... ... Appellants
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand & 220 others .... .... Respondents
with
LPA No. 434 of 2019
1. Jyotin Prakash Kushwaha, son of Ganesh Ram Kushwaha, At Tilaiya, PO
Maheshra, PS Muffasil, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand-825313
2. Bipin Kishor Khalkho, son of Kunwar Khalko, resident of Loyola Hostel Purulia
road, PS Lower Bazar, PO Church Road, Ranchi 834001 .... ... Appellants
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand & 217 others .... .... Respondents
with
LPA No. 451 of 2019
Mahesh Prasad, son of Sri Gyan Chand Ram, resident of village Bholidih, PO
Galagi, PS Nimiyaghat, District-Giridih .... ... Appellant
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand & 17 others ... ...Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Prem Mardi, Advocate
[In LPA Nos. 198 of 2019, LPA No. 413 of 2019 &LPA No.434 of 2019]
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate;
Ms. Apoorva Singh, Advocate
[In LPA No. 451 of 2019]
For the JPSC : Mr. (Dr.) Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate;
Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocate;
Ms. Madhu Priya, Advocate.
[In LPA No.198 of 2019, LPA No.413 of 2019 & LPA No.434 of 2019]
Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate;
Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
[In LPA No. 451 of 2019]
For the Pvt. Resps : Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate
[In LPA Nos. 198 of 2019]
-------
2 LPA 198 of 2019
and analogo us cases
ORDER
28th July 2022 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.
The appellants in this batch of Letters Patent Appeals have challenged the legality of the order dated 7th December 2018 passed in WP(C) No. 3962 of 2013 and analogous cases - LPA No. 198 of 2019 arises out of WP(C) No. 3962 of 2013; LPA No. 413 of 2019 arises out of WP(C) No. 1615 of 2014; LPA No. 434 of 2019 arises out of WP(C) No. 1779 of 2014, and; LPA No. 451 of 2019 arises out of WP(C) No. 5087 of 2013.
2. Since the issue involved in this batch of Letters Patent Appeals is common and all four Appeals are directed against the aforesaid order dated 7th December 2018 passed in WP(C) No. 3962 of 2013 and analogous cases, these Letters Patent Appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.
3. Mr. Prem Mardi, the learned counsel who appears for the appellants in LPA No. 198 of 2019, LPA No. 413 of 2019 and LPA No. 434 of 2019 and Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel who appears for the sole appellant in LPA No.451 of 2019, have confined their arguments to introduction and applicability of "scaling method" in evaluation of the question papers for 4th Combined Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination conducted in the year 2011.
4. The first ground to challenge the final results published for 4th Combined Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2010 is that the rules of game could not have been changed by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'Commission') in the middle of selection process and, that too, without any notice to the applicants who were aspirants for appointment on various posts under the Government of Jharkhand.
5. The learned counsels for the appellants would submit that after result of the preliminary test was published an amendment was introduced in the Rules of Procedure, 2002 for scaling of answer sheets by the Commission. It is stated that 29th February 2012 was the last date for submission of applications for Mains Examination and, on the same day, an amendment was brought in under Clause 4 (xii) (i) of the Rules of Procedure, 3 LPA 198 of 2019 and analogo us cases 2002 to provide for "scaling method".
6. A related issue which is raised by the appellants in this context is that the Commission should have adhered to the Rules which were existing as on 1st July 2010 and 4th Combined Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2010 should have been conducted in accordance with the Rules which were in operation on that day.
7. Referring to a decision in "Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kottayam & others v. Esthappan Cherian & another" (2021) 10 SCC 210, Mr. Prem Mardi, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that any rule of law cannot be construed as retrospective unless it expresses a clear and manifest intention to the contrary.
8. Mr. Prem Mardi, the learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the following judgments:
(i) "Maharashtra Road Transport Crop. & Ors. v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors." (2001) 10 SCC 51;
(ii) "Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi" (2008) 7 SCC 11;
(iii) "Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.", Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No.2103 of 2020;
(iv) "The Assam Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Pranjal Kumar Sarma & Ors" (2019) 17 Scale 542;
(v) "Baranwal Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr", Rajasthan HC, Civil Writ Petition No.1211 of 2014;
(vi) "P. Ganeshwar Rao & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors." 1988 Supp SCC 740;
(vii) "N.T. Devin Kati v. Karnataka" PSC 1990 3 SCC 157;
(viii) "Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kottayam & Ors. v.
Esthappan Cherian & Anr.", Supreme Court ,Civil Appeal No.5815 of 2009;
(ix) "Shri Jibon Kalita v. The State of Assam", Gauhati High Court, WP(C) No. 3864 of 2018;
(x) "Dr.(Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar & Ors.", Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No.9482 of 2019"
9. The grievance put forth by the appellants seems to be that by introduction of "scaling method" their raw marks were brought down substantially, which resulted in their elimination from selection.
10. Plainly speaking, submission made at Bar is that amendment dated 29th February 2012 could not have been given retrospective effect and it was not permissible for the Commission to adopt the "scaling method" in 4 th Combined Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2010.
11. Mr. (Dr.) Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the Commission, submits that the appellants are beneficiaries of the "scaling 4 LPA 198 of 2019 and analogo us cases method" who, however, when were not selected turned around and challenged the adoption of "scaling method" by the Commission. The learned counsel for the Commission has vehemently argued that the appellants are estopped from raising a plea based on applicability of "scaling method" for the Mains Examination.
12. Advertisement No.7 of 2010 was issued on 1st July 2010 inviting applications for appointment on 219 posts in various services under the Government of Jharkhand. The preliminary test was conducted in January 2011 and results were published on 23rd August 2011. It is not in dispute that all the appellants were declared qualified in the preliminary test. It is also not in dispute that "scaling method" was adopted for evaluating the optional papers in the Mains Examination.
13. At the outset, we may indicate that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsels for the appellants are not applicable in the facts of the present case and the aforesaid judgments have been rendered in the peculiar facts of the case - a judgment is an authority for what it actually decides. There is no commonness of the issues and similarities in facts with those cases. The principles regarding change in the rules of game would apply in cases where a substantive/vested right in a person has been taken away or it is shown to the Court that change in the rules midway has substantially affected the outcome of any test or examination.
14. Generally all the procedural laws are retrospective in nature and the principles relating to change in the rules of game are applicable in relation to substantive laws/rules. Since the Commission's Rules of Procedure, 2002 was silent on the procedure which the Commission can adopt for evaluation of papers, the amendment was brought in the Rules of 2002. Even otherwise, the Commission has a right to choose its own method of selection provided the same is not discriminatory and is applied uniformly to all. Mr. (Dr.) Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the Commission, has rightly submitted that a candidate has no legal right to raise objection about the method of evaluation adopted by the Commission.
15. The learned Single Judge carefully considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter and by an elaborate judgment, after considering the authorities cited at Bar, rejected the aforesaid contentions raised by the 5 LPA 198 of 2019 and analogo us cases appellants before the writ Court.
16. The learned writ Court in paragraph Nos. 39 to 45 of the order dated 7th December 2018 has observed as under:
"39. So far as the sixth point raised by the petitioners regarding the amendment in the rule being in direct conflict with the judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh ( supra) , this court finds that the same is also fit to be rejected in view of the fact that the said judgment has been explained in the subsequent judgment which has clearly held that the entirety of the discussion and conclusions in Sanjay Singh was with regard to the question of 67 the suitability of the scaling system to an examination where the question papers were compulsory and common to all candidates. The deficiencies and shortcomings of the scaling method were in the above context . In the instant writ petition the method of scaling has been adopted only for the optional subjects and not for the compulsory subjects.
40. In the judgement reported in (2016) 2 SCC 495 (Sunil Kumar and Others vs. Bihar Public Service Commission and Others) while considering the Sanjay Singh's judgement ( supra ) at para 19 and 20, it has been held as follows:-
19. The entirety of the discussion and conclusions in Sanjay Singh was with regard to the question of the suitability of the scaling system to an examination where the question papers were compulsory and common to all candidates. The deficiencies and shortcomings of the scaling method as pointed out and extracted above were in the above context. But did Sanjay Singh lay down any binding and inflexible requirement of law with regard to adoption of the scaling method to an examination where the candidates are tested in different subjects as in the present examination? Having regard to the context in which the conclusions were reached and opinions were expressed by the Court it is difficult to understand as to how this Court in Sanjay Singh could be understood to have laid down any binding principle of law or directions or even guidelines with regard to holding of examinations;
evaluation of papers and declaration of results by the Commission. What was held, in our view, was that scaling is a method which was generally unsuitable to be adopted for evaluation of answer papers of subjects common to all candidates and that the application of the said method to the examination in question had resulted in unacceptable results. Sanjay Singh did not decide that to such an examination i.e. where the papers are common the system of moderation must be applied and to an examination where the papers/subjects are different, scaling is the only available option. We are unable to find any declaration of law or precedent or principle in Sanjay Singh to the above effect as has been canvassed before us on behalf of the appellants. The decision, therefore, has to be understood to be confined to the facts of the case, rendered upon a consideration of the relevant Service Rules prescribing a particular syllabus.
20. We cannot understand the law to be imposing the requirement of adoption of moderation to a particular kind of examination and scaling to others. Both are, at best, opinions, exercise of which requires an in-depth 6 LPA 198 of 2019 and analogo us cases consideration of questions that are more suitable for the experts in the field. Holding of public examinations involving wide and varied subjects/disciplines is a complex task which defies an instant solution by adoption of any singular process or by a straitjacket formula. Not only examiner variations and variation in award of marks in different subjects are issues to be answered, there are several other questions that also may require to be dealt with. Variation in the strictness of the questions set in a multidisciplinary examination format is one such fine issue that was coincidentally noticed in Sanjay Singh. A conscious choice of a discipline or a subject by a candidate at the time of his entry to the University thereby restricting his choice of papers in a public examination; the standards of inter-subject evaluation of answer papers and issuance of appropriate directions to evaluators in different subjects are all relevant areas of consideration. All such questions and, may be, several others not identified herein are required to be considered, which questions, by their very nature should be left to the expert bodies in the field, including, the Public Service 68 Commissions. The fact that such bodies including the Commissions have erred or have acted in less than a responsible manner in the past cannot be a reason for a free exercise of the judicial power which by its very nature will have to be understood to be, normally, limited to instances of arbitrary or mala fide exercise of power.
41. In the judgement reported in (2013) 12 SCC 489 (Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar vs. Union Public Service Commission) at para 15, it has been held as follows:-
"15.The argument of Shri Tulsi that in the garb of moderation, the Commission has resorted to scaling of marks and thereby deprived more meritorious candidates of their legitimate right to be selected does not commend acceptance because no material has been placed before this Court to substantiate the same. The mere fact that some of the candidates like the petitioner who cleared the preliminary examinations but could not cross the hurdle of main examination cannot lead to an inference that the method of moderation adopted by the Commission is faulty.
42. In the judgement reported in (2018) 3 SCC 706 (Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Manoj Kumar Yadav and Others) at para 12 to 15, it has been held as follows:-
"12. It is clear from the above that the process of scaling is a recognised method for ensuring uniformity amongst candidates who have taken examinations in different subjects. When there are a number of examiners evaluating the papers of a large number of candidates in an examination, there is a possibility of "examiner subjectivity" or "examiner variability". To minimise the examiner variability, this Court in Sanjay Singh case held that moderation would be the best method to be followed.
13. In the PCS Examination, 2004 and the Backlog Examination, 2004 the candidates had to take part in the main written examinations which consisted of four compulsory subjects and two optional subjects. The compulsory subjects were common to all candidates and the two optional subjects were to be chosen from the available 33 subjects as mentioned in the advertisements.
7 LPA 198 of 2019 and analogo us cases As per the judgment of this Court in Sanjay Singh case, the Commission could have followed the scaling method only for the optional subjects and not for the compulsory subjects. However, it is clear from the submissions made on behalf of the appellant in the High Court that scaling method was followed even for compulsory subjects. We approve the findings of the High Court that the evaluation of the PCS and Backlog Recruitment Examinations, 2004 was contrary to the judgment of this Court in Sanjay Singh case.
14. Though we are in agreement with the view of the High Court that the examinations were not conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in Sanjay Singh case, we do not approve the directions given in the judgment to finalise the results afresh in accordance with the observations made therein. The exercise to be undertaken as per the said directions would result in displacement of a number of selected candidates not before this Court and alteration of the merit list causing serious prejudice to those appointed and working for the last ten years. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appointments made pursuant to the advertisements of 2004 for the "PCS" and "Backlog" posts should not be disturbed.
15. It is settled law that in certain situations, on account of subsequent events, the final relief granted by this Court may not be the natural consequence of the ratio decidendi of its judgment. In such situations, the relief can be moulded by the Court in order to do complete justice in the matter. It is relevant to note the fact that Sanjay Singh case2 was also made prospective in operation and this Court declined to interfere with the selections already made in that case on the basis that relief can be moulded. In the instant case, the examinations were conducted by the appellant on the basis of the pattern being followed by them 69 since 1996. At the time when the examinations were conducted, a judgment of this Court in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Subhash Chandra Dixit5 approving the scaling method adopted by the Commission held the field. Moreover, the selected candidates were appointed on the basis of an interim order4 passed by this Court in 2007 and they have been working continuously since then. There are no allegations of any irregularities or malpractices in the conduct of the said examinations. The candidates who participated in the examinations cannot be found fault with for the error committed by the appellant in adopting the scaling method. In view of the above, we do not deem it fit to disturb the appointments made pursuant to the selections in the examinations conducted in 2004."
43.The petitioners have also relied upon the judgement passed by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in writ petition no. 1211/2014 (Banwari Lal versus State of Rajasthan and another) to submit that the instant case is fully covered by the said judgement. This court finds that the said judgement passed by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court is clearly distinguishable on facts as in the said case the scaling method was adopted not only for the optional subjects but also for the compulsory subjects and the formula adopted for scaling was itself found to be faulty as it had the effect of excluding meritorious candidates as demonstrated by the writ petitioners of the said case. In the instant case there is no such corresponding 8 LPA 198 of 2019 and analogo us cases facts. Scaling method has been adopted only for optional subjects, the formula has been found to be scientifically/ statistically sound by the experts as indicated above and the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the meritorious candidate have been excluded on account of applying the method of scaling in the optional subjects.
44. Accordingly, the sixth point raised by the petitioners that the method of scaling as adopted in this case is not permissible in view of the judgement passed in the case of Sanjay Singh ( Supra) is rejected. This court finds that no illegality has been committed by the respondents by resorting to method of scaling in connection with evaluation of candidates for their optional subjects.
45.As a cumulative effect to the aforesaid findings , this Court does not find any merit in these writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed."
17. Mr.(Dr.) Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the Commission, has pointed out that the "scaling method" was applied only in respect of optional subjects and the appellants were benefited on account of scaling of marks as their raw marks were substantially enhanced.
18. On applicability of "scaling method" which is commonly called "examiner subjectivity" or "examiner variability", our attention has been drawn to paragraph No.16 to 28 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Commission in WP(C) No. 3962 of 2013 which read as under:
" 16. That, it is very relevant to detail here that the petitioners are beneficiary of scaling system, which would be evident from the facts detailed herein below, i.e. raw marks and scaled marks of the petitioners in Preliminary Test Examination for optional subjects:
Petitioner Name Raw marks Scaled marks
No.
1. Pravin Kr. Rana 157.14 195.961262
2. Hulash Mahto 181.44 191.050243
3. Binod Kumar 179.38 189.958208
4. Bikash Kr. 179.38 189.958208
Baranwal
5. Pawan Kr. 181.44 191.050243
Bhaskar
17. That, it would be evident from the above facts that marks of optional subjects of the petitioners were increased after scaling and they were also declared successful in the Preliminary Test Examination and they were also allowed to appear in the mains examination.
18. That, it is relevant to mention here that after publication of re- revised result on 03.02.2012, the J.P.S.C. issued press notice on 04.02.2012 for Mains Examination of the 4th Combined Civil Services Examination, by which all the successful candidates were informed that the application forms, Rules of filing of application forms and syllabus of Mains Examination will be available on the web-site of the J.P.S.C. w.e.f.
9 LPA 198 of 2019 and analogo us cases 08.02.2012 and the candidates can down load the application form, Rules of filing up application forms and syllabus from the website of the J.P.S.C. and they are required to send their application forms to the J.P.S.C. through speed post or by hand latest by 29.02.2012.
19. That, it is stated that the J.P.S.C. accordingly up loaded the application forms of the Mains Examination instruction for filing of application forms and syllabus on the website of the J.P.S.C.,
20. That, it is not out of place to mention here that the last date of submission of application forms of Mains Examination of 4th Combined Civil Services Examination was extended by the J.P.S.C. upto 09.03.2012. Accordingly, a corrigendum was issued by the J.P.S.C. on 02.03.2012 in Daily News Paper by which the candidates were informed about extension of date for submission of the application form by 09.03.2012.
21. That, after publication of result of Preliminary Test Examination, petitioners also submitted their application form before the J.P.S.C. for appearance in mains examination and they have also opted two optional subjects for mains examination in terms of Annexure-F.
22. That, it is also relevant to mention here that before starting the mains examination w.e.f. 25.5.2012, W.P.(C) No.-7692 of 2011, 7597 of 2011, 1069 of 2012 and other analogous cases, in which, result of Preliminary Test Examination has been challenged on the ground of scaling were listed for bearing in admission natter on 19.05.2012 before this Hon'ble Court.
That, this Hon'ble Court, after hearing the counsel for the parties, has been pleased to not interfere with Preliminary Test Examination result and all cases were adjourned for 25.06.2012.
23. That, as per schedule, the J.P.S.C. conducted the Mains Examination of 4th Combined Civil Services Examination from 25.05.2012 to 10.06.2012.
24. That, it is stated that the petitioners also appeared in the mains examination of 4th Combined Civil Services Examination without any protest and written the examination.
25. That, it is stated that after conducting the Mains Examination, J.P.S.C. published the result of Mains Examination on 18.09.2012 after applying the scaling formula.
26. That, it is stated that the petitioners were not declared successful on the basis of marks (scaled) secured by them. In other words, the petitioners are unsuccessful candidates.
27. That, as detailed earlier, the petitioners have opted 2 optional subjects in mains examination and marks of optional subjects were scaled and petitioners are again beneficiaries of the scaling method, which would be evident from the facts stated below:
Petitioner No.1 has opted anthropology (Optional Paper-I) and Khortha Language & literature (Optional Paper-II) as his optional subjects in the main examination.
Petitioner No.2 has opted Geography (Optional Paper-1) and Khortha Language & literature (Optional Paper II) as his optional subjects in the main examination.
Petitioner No.3 has opted Labour & Social Welfare (Optional Paper-1) and Khortha Language & literature (Optional Paper II) as his optional subjects in the main examination. Petitioner No.4 has opted Labour & Social Welfare (Optional Paper-1) and Khortha Language & literature (Optional Paper II) as his optional subjects in the main examination.
Petitioner No.5 has opted Geography (Optional Paper-1) and Khortha Language & literature (Optional Paper II) as his optional subjects in the main examination.
10 LPA 198 of 2019 and analogo us cases
28. That, the details about raw marks and scaled marks of the petitioners are being detailed herein below:
Petitioner No.1 Optional Paper-I: Raw Marks (Paper-I & II) (100+118) =218 Scaled Marks........=303.313964 Optional Paper-II: Raw Marks (Paper-I & II) (145+145) =290 Scaled Marks=362.833205 Petitioner No.2 Optional Paper-I: Raw Marks (Paper-I & II) (119+127) =246 Scaled Marks=348.271775 Optional Paper-II: Raw Marks Paper-i & 11)( 134+125) =259 Scaled Marks=298.164810 Petitioner No.3 Optional Paper-1: Raw Marks (Paper-I & II) (122+107) =229 Scaled Marks=286.996030 Optional Paper-II: Raw Marks (Paper-1 & II) ( 145+146) =291 Scaled Marks=364.235301 Petitioner No.4 Optional Paper-I: Raw Marks (Paper-I & II) (122+110) =232 Scaled Marks=298.147919 Optional Paper-II: Raw Marks (Paper-I & II) (148+148) =296 Scaled Marks=370.660948 Petitioner No.5 Optional Paper-1: Raw Marks (Paper-I & II) ( 115+122) =237 Scaled Marks=320.512363 Optional Paper-II: Raw Marks (Paper-I & II) (121+132) =253 Scaled Marks= 281.029774"
19. Mr. Prem Mardi, the learned counsel for the appellants, would however, try to indicate by referring to the chart prepared in the writ petition that the appellants as a result of adoption of "scaling method" were eliminated from selection though they had secured more raw marks than the last cut off marks.
20. There is a fallacy in this submission for the reason that cut off mark has been fixed after adopting the "scaling method", and what could have been cut off mark for the raw marks secured by the candidates would be in the realm of guesswork. It is well settled that the Courts do not act on mere probability [refer: "Razia Begam v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum" AIR 1958 SC 886] and, moreover, the writ Court is divested of its jurisdiction wherever serious disputed questions of fact are involved.
21. Mr. Prem Mardi, the learned counsel for the appellants has brought to our notice various e-mails send by the applicants for urgent 11 LPA 198 of 2019 and analogo us cases hearing of these Letters Patent Appeals. The learned counsel has stated that as many as 5 Interlocutory Applications were filed by the appellants and two of the appellants, namely, Binod Kumar and Bikash Kumar Barnwal approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1035 of 2021 seeking a direction for urgent hearing of these Letters Patent Appeals.
22. Mr. Prem Mardi, the learned counsel for the appellants, on the basis of the aforesaid materials, has tried to demonstrate that there was no latches or delay on the part of the appellants either before the writ Court or before the Letters Patent Court for prosecuting the matter but the petitions were finally decided after five years and, in the meantime, appointments were made.
23. Submission is that such appointments shall not be an obstacle to grant relief to the appellants in the present proceeding.
24. In the first place, we would indicate that these matters were listed before us for the first time on 5th July 2022 upon a mentioning slip dated 29th June 2022 tendered by Mr. Prem Mardi, the learned counsel for the appellants. These matters were on Board on 25th July 2022 but due to strike called by the Jharkhand State Bar Council, the matters were adjourned and have been taken up for hearing on 27 th July 2022. Besides this, we may indicate that we would have gone into the question of delay and latches had the appellants been able to establish a case on merits.
25. As noticed above, the writ Court did not find any merit in the matter and we have no reason to disagree with the findings recorded by the writ Court.
26. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, LPA No. 198 of 2019, LPA No. 413 of 2019, LPA No. 434 of 2019 and LPA No. 451 of 2019 are dismissed.
27. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 28th July 2022 SB/Nibha-NAFR