Jharkhand High Court
Kismanti Minz vs The Jharkhand Public Service ... on 12 January, 2021
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.1230 of 2020
Kismanti Minz, aged 38 years, daughter of Mahavir Minz, resident of
Hesal Mangan Toli, Post Kursi, Police Station of Lohardagga, District
Lohardagga.
. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi through its
Secretary, officiating from JPSC Office, Circular Road, Ranchi, Post
Lalpur, Police Station Lalpur, District Ranchi.
2. The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service
Commission, Ranchi, officiating from JPSC Office, Circular Road,
Ranchi, Post Lalpur, Police Station Lalpur, District Ranchi.
... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate
----------------------------
ORAL JUDGMENT
04/Dated 12th January, 2021
1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no
complaint about any audio and visual quality.
2. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
whereby and whereunder direction has been sought for upon the
respondents to re-evaluate Paper I and Paper II of the petitioner who
had appeared in the examination for appointment of Civil Judge
(Jr. Division) in pursuance to the Advertisement No.12/2018
conducted by Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter
[2]
referred to as the JPSC) with a further direction upon the
respondents to recommend the name of the petitioner for her
appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) under
Schedule Tribe category, if there is a vacancy.
3. The brief facts of the case as has been pleaded in the writ petition
reads as hereunder:
The JPSC came out with an advertisement being
Advertisement No.12/2018 inviting applications for appointment of
Civil Judges (Jr. Division).
The petitioner on finding herself eligible, applied in
pursuance thereto for consideration of her candidature under
Schedule Tribe category. She participated in the process of selection
and was declared successful in the main examination and
accordingly, participated in the interview. The result of the Civil
Judge (Jr. Division) was declared on 12.02.2020 in which she was
declared unsuccessful.
The petitioner came to know about her marks from the
website of JPSC that she had obtained 38 marks in Paper I and 42
marks in Paper II.
Further case of the petitioner is that the cut off marks for
Schedule Tribe category was 201.67 whereas the petitioner had
obtained 198.67 marks and in that pretext she has filed this writ
petition seeking direction for re-evaluation of Paper I and Paper II.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The relief sought for
in this writ petition is for re-evaluation of Paper I and Paper II.
[3]
5. In course of argument, a specific query has been made by this Court
to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether there is any
regulation for re-evaluation under the Rule?
6. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner with all fairness
has submitted that there is no such Rule to that effect.
7. It is the settled position of law as has been held by Hon'ble Apex
Court in Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 357 that in absence of any rule/regulation for
re-evaluation of the answer-sheet, there cannot be any direction for
the same.
Further, in Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Anr. vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors., 2020 SCC Online SC 993 it has been laid
down that re-evaluation can be directed, if Rule permits.
8. This Court, after taking into consideration the aforesaid position of
law, is of the view that the relief sought for in this writ petition is
not fit to be allowed.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Saurabh
N.A.F.R.
