Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

.

II. For directing the respondent no.1 to publish the result and marks break-up of candidates appeared in computer proficiency test.

III. For issuance of direction to respondent no.1 to conduct the interview on the basis of result declared in computer proficiency test without having qualifying criteria in interview as per the rule of 2021.

IV. For directing the respondent to declare a final merit list including the marks break-up of all the candidates in public domain with immediate effect.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no.1 has issued an advertisement for the post of Assistant recruitment examination, 2023 vide its Advertisement No. PHC/01/2023 dated 03.02.2023. Counsel submits that the petitioners in selection process have changed the rule of the game after publication of the advertisement and prior to the result. Counsel further submits that the first objection is that the result was not published in public domain and his second contention is that in the rule which is Annexure-P/2 in Part-IV (Rule 6(A)) under Serial No.8, there was no condition of minimum qualification was inserted and examination has to be Patna High Court CWJC No.11990 of 2024 dt.12-08-2024 taken place by virtue of appearance of a person having certain minimum qualification followed by written test followed by computer proficiency test and interview. It is nowhere mentioned in the rule that there shall be minimum cut-off marks in any of the examination. But, in the selection process, minimum cut-off marks has been fixed which is in gross violation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that vide Annexure-P/5, in the test of computer proficiency, the minimum qualifying marks in word processing test, spread-sheet test and internet proficiency have been divided on the basis of maximum and minimum marks. Counsel submits that vide Annexure-P/8, there was a clear cut undertaking made by the Registrar General, Patna High Court that the detailed result shall be published. But it has never come in the public domain. Counsel submits that similarly in the interview, the minimum marks has been fixed. Counsel submits that under RTI (Right To Information), it has been informed that 148 candidates were disqualified in the computer proficiency test, but interview of all candidates have been taken independent of this point that some of the persons have not completed the computer proficiency test. Counsel relied on a judgment in case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 104 and submits that in the said judgment, it has Patna High Court CWJC No.11990 of 2024 dt.12-08-2024 been categorically held in paragraph no.17 which states that:-