Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. That brings us to the submission by Mr. Rao that while re-evaluation is a good option not only to do justice to those who may have suffered on account of an erroneous key being applied to the process but also to writ Petitioners- Respondents 6 to 18 in the matter of allocating to them their rightful place in the merit list. Such evaluation need not necessarily result in the ouster of the Appellants should they be found to fall below the 'cut off' mark in the merit list. Mr. Rao gave two reasons in support of that submission. Firstly, he contended that the Appellants are not responsible for the error committed by the parties in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts. The position may have been different if the Appellants were guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice that would have deprived them of any sympathy from the Court or justified their ouster. Secondly, he contended that the Appellants have served the State efficiently and without any complaint for nearly seven years now and most of them, if not all, may have become overage for fresh recruitment within the State or outside the State. They have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examination held in the year 2007. Their ouster from service after their employment on the basis of a properly conducted competitive examination not itself affected by any malpractice or other extraneous consideration or misrepresentation will cause hardship to them and ruin their careers and lives. The experience gained by these Appellants over the years would also, according to Mr. Rao, go waste as the State will not have the advantage of using valuable human resource which was found useful in the service of the people of the State of Bihar for a long time. Mr. Rao, therefore, prayed for a suitable direction that while re-evaluation can determine the inter-se position of the writ Petitioners and the Appellants in these appeals, the result of such re-evaluation may not lead to their ouster from service, if they fell below the cut off line.

The position of fact is similar in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra). Therein, Hon'ble Apex Court took notice that the candidates already appointed were not guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice. They had otherwise served the State efficiently for nearly 7 years and even become overage for fresh recruitment within the State or outside the State. They lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examination held in the year 2007. The portions of para 17 and 18 of the said judgment is again quoted hereunder for ready reference -

17. That brings us to the submission by Mr. Rao that while re-evaluation is a good option not only to do justice to those who may have suffered on account of an erroneous key being applied to the process but also to writ Petitioners- Respondents 6 to 18 in the matter of allocating to them their rightful place in the merit list. Such evaluation need not necessarily result in the ouster of the Appellants should they be found to fall below the 'cut off' mark in the merit list...

......Secondly, he contended that the Appellants have served the State efficiently and without any complaint for nearly seven years now and most of them, if not all, may have become overage for fresh recruitment within the State or outside the State. They have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examination held in the year 2007. Their ouster from service after their employment on the basis of a properly conducted competitive examination not itself affected by any malpractice or other extraneous consideration or misrepresentation will cause hardship to them and ruin their careers and lives.

The further issue raised by learned counsel for petitioners is regarding deprivation of the petitioners to apply for the same posts in the next selection as the last date of which was 4.9.2013. The issue aforesaid also needs consideration thus proper directions would be given in the operative portion of the judgment so that action of the State Government may not affect those candidates in the future selection even if they have become overage and if failed to apply for that.

In the instant case, number of candidates going out of merit is large as it is running in hundreds and thousands. It was noticed during the course of arguments that around 2455 candidates have gone out of merit for the post of Teacher Gr III (Level-II) and 187 candidates have gone out of merit for the post of Teacher Gr III (Level-I). If such number of candidates are continued and, at the same time, a direction for appointment of equivalent number of candidates coming in the merit is given, it may virtually or to some extent, nullify the next recruitment as appointment of meritorious candidates has to be adjusted somewhere against those vacancies only. It may be true that default in setting out the questions or answers is not due to malpractice, misrepresentation or fraud of the petitioners but then this court should not ignore the fact that effect of continuance of large number of candidates would nullify the very purpose of revaluation itself which otherwise is held to be proper method to correct the irregularities. If, in all circumstances, a candidate going out of merit is continued in service, it would be adjustment of less meritorious candidates at the cost of those who may exist in between new cut off marks and the marks of the petitioners.