Sachit Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1498 Jhar

                             [1]


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         L.P.A. No.297 of 2018
1. Sachit Kumar Singh, aged about 37 years, Constable No.126, S/o
   Shri Rudra Pratap Singh, R/o Village Bhawanathpur, PO & PS
   Bhawanathpur, Dist.-Garhwa.
2. Dharmendra Kumar, Aged about 42 years, Constable No.117, S/o
   Shri Sideshwar Singh, R/o Village Sarwan, PO Usmanchak, PS
   Masaurhi, Dist Patna (Bihar).
                                               . ... Petitioners/Appellants
                                   Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO Dhurwa,
   PS Jaganathpur, Dist-Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Committee, Throughit's Secretary, Kali
   Nagar, Chai Began, Namkum, Dist-Ranchi, Jharkhand, PO + PS
   Namkum.
4. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman,
   Namkom Ranchi.
                                             ... Respondents/Respondents
                                    WITH
                         L.P.A. No.473 of 2018

   Narendra Singh, Aged about 39 years, ASI, s/o Shri Param Singh,
   R/o Vill-Suhia, P.O. + P.S. Sahpur, Dist Bhojpur (Bihar).

                                                  ... Petitioner/Appellant

                                    Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. The Director General of Police, Govt of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan,
   PO & PS Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Throughit's Secretary, Kali
   Nagar, Chai Began, PO + PS Namkum, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its
   Office at Kali Nagar, Chai Began, PO & PS Namkum, Dist Ranchi.

                                             ...Respondents/Respondents
                              [2]


                                   WITH
                         L.P.A. No.474 of 2018

   Bijayendra Kumar Sah, aged about 37 years, Constable No.631, S/o
   Late Ram Bahadur Sah, R/o Majhar Tola, P.O. Borio, P.S. Borio (J),
   Dist.-Sahibganj.

                                                 ... Petitioner/Appellant

                                   Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Throughit's Secretary, Kali
   Nagar, Chai Began, PO + PS Namkum, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.

                                            ...Respondents/Respondents

                                   WITH
                         L.P.A. No.475 of 2018

   Raj Kishore Tiwari, aged about 32 years, Constable No.1207 S/o Shri
   Shahsidhar @ Shashidhar Tiwari, R/o Vill-Amehata, PO & PS
   Agioan Bazar, Dist Bhojpur (Bihar).

                                                 ... Petitioner/Appellant

                                   Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. The Director General of Police, Govt of Jharkhand, Project Building,
   PO & PS Dhurwa, Distt.-Ranchi
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Throughit's Secretary, Kali
   Nagar, Chai Began, PO + PS Namkum, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Chairman, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having office
   at Kali Nagar, Chai Began, PO + PS Namkum, Dist Ranchi.

                                            ...Respondents/Respondents

                                   WITH
                         L.P.A. No.476 of 2018

   Thaneshwar Ravidar, aged about 45 years, S/o Late Hulash Ravidas
   R/o Vill Nimadih, PO Charki, PS, Gawan, Dist Giridih.

                                                 ... Petitioner/Appellant

                                   Versus
                                 [3]


1. State of Jharkhand.
2. The Director General of Police, Govt of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan,
   PO & PS Dhurwa, Distt.-Ranchi
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Through it's Secretary, Kali
   Nagar, Chai Began, PO + PS Namkum, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its
   office at Kali Nagar, Chai Began, PO + PS Namkum, Dist Ranchi.

                                                    ...Respondents/Respondents

                                       WITH
                          L.P.A. No.580 of 2018
   Manjay Kumar, aged about 31 years, Constable No.389, s/o Late
   Ramashish Prasad Sahani, R/o Village + P.O. Nawadah, P.S.
   Pakridayal, Dist. Motihari, Bihar.

                                                           ... Petitioner/Appellant

                                        Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Director General of Police, Govt of Jharkhand, having its office at
   Police Head Quarter, Dhurwa, PO & PSJagarnathpur, Dist- Ranchi.
3. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Through it's Secretary,
   having office at Kali Nagar, Chai Began, PO & PS Namkum, Dist.
   Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its
   office at Kali Nagar, Chai Began, PO & PS Namkum, Dist Ranchi.

                                                    ...Respondents/Respondents
                                -------

CORAM:              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
                                -------
For the Appellants : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate
                      Mr. Nitesh Sinha, Advocate

For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. SC-III (LPA No.297 of 2018) Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to AG (LPA Nos.473 of 2018, 475 of 2018 and 476 of 2018) Mr. Sreenu Garapati, SC-III (LPA No.474 of 2018) Mr. Rohit, AC to AAG-I (LPA No.580 of 2018) For the JSSC : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate

--------------------------

[4]

ORAL JUDGMENT

17/Dated 24th March, 2021

I.A. Nos. 2773 of 2020, 2774 of 2020, 2771 of 2020 and 2772 of 2020 in L.P.A. Nos.297 of 2018, 473 of 2018, 474 of 2018 and 475 of 2018 respectively:

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 or visual quality.

2. Supplementary affidavits have been filed on behalf of the appellants

on 03.05.2019 and as per our direction, copies of the same have

been served upon the other sides. However, from perusal of the

supplementary affidavits it appears that certain facts are being

brought on record by way of it which are not the part of the writ

proceedings and were not available to the Writ Court to take a

decision.

3. We are, therefore, of the view that we would only proceed to

dispose of the appeals on its own merits, in accordance with the law

and upon the pleadings of both the parties which were there in the

writ proceedings. These appeals are arising out of the same

impugned order.

4. Accordingly, I.A. Nos. 2773 of 2020, 2774 of 2020, 2771 of

2020 and 2772 of 2020 in L.P.A. Nos.297 of 2018, 473 of

2018, 474 of 2018 and 475 of 2018 respectively stand disposed

of.

[5]

L.P.A. Nos.297 of 2018, 473 of 2018, 474 of 2018, 475 of 2018,

476 of 2018 and 580 of 2018:

5. All the appeals have been tagged together vide order dated

25.02.2020 for analogous hearing. Accordingly, all these appeals

have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common

order/judgment.

6. These appeals are under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed

against the order/judgment dated 23.04.2018 passed by the learned

Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) Nos.273 of 2018, 308 of

2018, 314 of 2018, 316 of 2018 and 861 of 2018 whereby and

whereunder the writ petitions have been dismissed refusing to grant

any relief in favour of the petitioners seeking a direction upon the

respondents to struck down the questions which were out of

syllabus and asked without correct option for the examination held

for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police pursuant to

advertisement No.09/2017 in the name of Jharkhand Police Sub

Inspector Limited Competitive Examination, 2017.

7. The brief facts of the case which requires to be enumerated, are as

under:

The petitioners/appellants who were in service posted as

Constable in different districts of the State of Jharkhand have made

applications for consideration of their candidature for being

appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in pursuance to the

advertisement being Advertisement No.09/2017 issued by

Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, hereinafter referred to as [6]

JSSC, for selection and appointment of the candidates through the

limited competitive examination.

As per the case of the petitioners/appellants the total

number of vacancies was shown to be 1544 out of which 772

vacancies were for unreserved category but while publishing the

result, only 663 candidates have been shown to be qualified in the

written test. The case of the petitioners/appellants are that they are

having required eligibility criteria, as such, they made applications

for consideration of their candidature by participating in the process

of selection. The petitioners/appellants, having been declared to be

unsuccessful candidates in the written test, sought for information

from the concerned authority/examining body.

According to the petitioners/appellants, the main reason

for being unsuccessful in the written test is that the answers of some

of the questions have wrongly been printed, therefore, they ought to

have been allotted marks of such questions. It is the grievance of the

petitioners/appellants that they have made due objection regarding

the wrong printed options, however, to no effect, therefore, the writ

petitions have been filed on the ground that the answers of some of

the questions have wrongly been printed, which according to the

petitioners/appellants, are correct but the same has been found to be

incorrect by the evaluator and in that view of the matter, the opinion

have to be sought for from the expert in order to reach to the

rightful conclusion about the correctness of the answers of such

questions but no endeavours have been taken by the examining

body.

[7]

The respondent-examining body has appeared and

contested the case inter alia on the ground that the

petitioners/appellants have not raised any objection within the

stipulated time as notified by the JSSC, therefore, there is no

occasion to raise the issue to send answers of such questions before

the expert body.

Further, it has been pointed out that even accepting that

all the answers of those questions have wrongly been printed but the

same is wrong for all in general, therefore, no prejudice has been

caused to the petitioners/appellants.

The learned Single Judge after appreciating the rival

submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, dismissed the writ

petitions against which the instant intra-court appeal has been

preferred.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants has submitted by

referring to the prayer made in the writ petition pertaining to Paper-

II and Paper-III wherein wrong answers of question Nos.16 & 47 of

Paper-II and question Nos.62 & 88 of Paper-III have been

furnished, as such, for such wrong committed by the examining

body, the petitioners/appellants cannot be allowed to suffer.

He, therefore, submits that since there is wrong answers

of some of the questions and of some of the questions correct

answer have been given but the same has been found to be incorrect

by the examining body and in that view of the matter, in order to

reach to the correctness of the answers of the questions, such [8]

answers ought to have been referred before the examining body. In

support of his argument, he has relied upon a judgment rendered by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rishal and Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public

Service Commission and Ors., (2018) 8 SCC 81.

It has further been submitted that under Paper-II,

question No.16 pertains to "What is the maximum duration of an

order to remain in force issued under Section 144?" and the options

given therein are "One Month / Two Months / Three Months / Six

Months", but according to the learned counsel, if the provision of

Section 144 of Cr.P.C. will be seen, the maximum duration is for 60

days, hence, such answer having been furnished by the

petitioners/appellants of the aforesaid question, one marks ought to

have been allotted.

Likewise, question No.47 under Paper-II pertains to "As

per Section 144, an order in urgent cases of nuisance of

apprehended danger can be issued in the manner prescribed under

Section" and the options given therein are "131 / 132 / 133 / 134",

according to the petitioners/appellants, answer of this question is

'131' but no marks has been allotted.

So far as question No.62 of Paper-III is concerned, the

same pertains to "Which of the following types of soil is mostly

found in the Damodar Valley of Jharkhand?" and the options given

therein are "Sandy soil / Black soil / Red soil / Micacious soil",

according to the learned counsel the correct answer is 'Sandy soil'

but no marks has been given and to support his argument he has

relied upon certain documents.

[9]

So far as question No.88 of Paper-III is concerned, the

same pertains to "Gandhi wrote on of his popular works known as

"Hind Swaraj" in a ship during his return visit from" and the

options given there are "South Africa to India / India to South

Africa / India to Ceylon / South America to Ceylon", according to

the learned counsel none of the option of this question is correct,

therefore, by not awarding the marks of this question, the

petitioners/appellants cannot be allowed to suffer.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants, however, submits

that he is not pressing the question which according to the

petitioners/appellants are out of syllabus, i.e., question Nos.9, 13, 23

and 37 but he submits that the four questions under Paper-II and

Paper-III, the options are wrong or even the correct answer has been

given by the petitioners/appellants, no marks has been allotted,

therefore, gross illegality has been committed which has not been

appreciated by the learned Single Judge, hence, the judgment

passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference.

10. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel for the J.S.S.C. has

vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioners/appellants

by taking the plea that as per the general notice notified by the

examining body, the objection was to be filed with respect to any

wrong question in between the period from 01.12.2017 to

08.12.2017 but as per the statement made by the

petitioners/appellants at paragraph-21, the objection has been made

on 06.01.2018 and 08.01.2018, therefore, in absence of any

objection within the stipulated time as notified, there is no question [10]

of referring the questions before the expert body as has been argued

by the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants.

He has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Anr. vs. The State of

Rajasthan and Ors., (2021) 2 SCC 309. According to the learned

counsel, the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the fact in detail in the

aforesaid case and placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by

Hon'ble Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. &

Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 357 has laid down at pargraphs-10 & 11 thereof

that re-evaluation can be directed if rules permits with the further

observance that the Court has deprecated the practive of re-

evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the Courts which lack

expertise in academic matters.

According to the learned counsel, the judgment rendered

by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rishal and Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public

Service Commission and Ors. (supra) is of a Bench comprising of

two Hon'ble Judges while the judgment rendered in Vikesh Kumar

Gupta and Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) is of a

Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges.

He further submits that in case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta

and Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) the

judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rishal and Ors.

vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors. (supra) as also

in H.P. Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr.,

(2010) 6 SCC 759 have been considered.

[11]

He further submits that since there is no provision for re-

evaluation, therefore, what the petitioners/appellants are praying is

not permissible in the eye of law as per the ratio laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred hereinabove.

11. Learned counsel for the JSSC further submits that there is no

question of sending the matter before the expert body as because the

petitioners/appellants have not availed the opportunity granted for

filing objection within the stipulated time notified therein, therefore,

according to him, the learned Single Judge after taking into

consideration the fact in entirety has come to a rightful conclusion,

hence, the said judgment does not require any interference by this

Court.

12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the

documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the

learned Single Judge in the impugned order/judgment. The basic

question raised by the petitioners/appellants which requires

consideration by this Court are:

(i) Whether the facts leading to this case requires any

interference for sending the answer sheet furnished by the

petitioners/appellants to the questions which is of concern in

this appeal, before the expert committee?

(ii) Whether in absence of any provision for re-evaluation can

such direction be issued by this Court?

13. Both the issues since are interlinked together, therefore, both are

being discussed together and answered together hereinbelow.

[12]

The most important fact which has been agitated by the

learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants is that since the

options of some of the questions are having discrepancy, therefore,

the same ought to have been referred before the expert committee in

view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rishal

and Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors.

(supra), therefore, we have thought it proper to consider the said

judgment wherein at paragraph-14 the Hon'ble Apex Court has

considered the issue to the effect that "the issue which has been

canvassed in this batch of appeals relates to correctness of final key

answers as uploaded by the Commission after considering

objections thereto. The appellants' case is that the treatment of the

objections by the Expert Committee was not based on authoritative

textbooks on the subjects and several errors crept into the answer

key vitiating the merits of the candidates affecting the entire

selection." It has been held therein at paragraph-15 that "the issue

pertaining to scope of judicial review of correctness of key answer

had been considered by this Court time and again. This Court had

entertained such challenges on very limited ground and has always

given due weight to the opinions of subject experts."

The Hon'ble Apex Court after taking into consideration

various judgments has been pleased to hold at paragraph-19 thereof

that "the publication of key answers is a step to achieve

transparency and to give an opportunity to candidates to assess the

correctness of their answers. An opportunity to file objections

against the key answers uploaded by examining body is a step to [13]

achieve fairness and perfection in the process. The objections to the

key answers are to be examined by the experts and thereafter

corrective measures, if any, should be taken by the examining

body." The Hon'ble Apex Court after taking into consideration the

fact in entirety arising out of the said case had issued directions to

refer the incorrect answers of such questions before the expert

committee in view of the objection made in this regard by the

candidates and based upon the said report, the consideration has

been given regarding the fate of the candidature of such candidates,

therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rishal and Ors. vs. Rajasthan

Public Service Commission and Ors. (supra) has considered it fit to

send the wrong answers before the expert committee in view of the

objection made by such candidates.

14. The fact herein, as would be evident from Annexure- 4 thereof, is

that the examining body had notified to submit the objection by one

or the other candidates in between the period from 01.12.2017 to

08.12.2017 but no such objection has been filed by the

petitioners/appellants within the stipulated period rather as would be

apparent from paragraph-21 of the writ petition that objection has

been filed on 06.01.2018 and 08.01.2018 and on 09.01.2018 the

result was published.

15. So far as the question of applicability of the judgment rendered in

Rishal and Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and

Ors. (supra) is concerned, the same, according to our considered

view, is not applicable in the facts of this case as because no such

objection has been filed for referring the matter before the expert [14]

committee for its opinion. However, if such objection would have

been filed within the notified period, the matter would have been

different and in that circumstances, the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Rishal and Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public

Service Commission and Ors. (supra) would have been made

applicable.

However, herein, the judgment rendered by Hon'ble

Apex Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Anr. vs. The State of

Rajasthan and Ors., (2021) 2 SCC 309 will be applicable on the

facts of this case wherein by putting reliance upon the judgment

rendered in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors

(supra). The consideration has been given as would be evident from

paragraph-14 & 15 thereof which reads as hereunder:

"14. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates (H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur [H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 286 : 3 SCEC 713] ). Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the expert committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations (see Basavaiah v. H.L. Ramesh).

15. Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re-

evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. [Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] held that the court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the academic matters are best left to academics. This Court in the said judgment further held as follows : (Ran Vijay Singh case [Ran Vijay Singh v. State [15]

of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] , SCC pp. 369-70, paras 31-32)

"31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse--exclude the suspect or offending question.

32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination--whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse [16]

confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.""

Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid observation made

hereinabove that re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit.

Further it has been observed that in absence of any rule, if any

direction would be passed for re-evaluation of the answer sheets,

the same would amount to exceeding the jurisdiction of the High

Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

16. It also requires to refer herein paragraph-32 of the judgment

rendered in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors

(supra), which reads as hereunder:

"32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination -- whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's [17]

advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."

17. This Court, after taking into consideration the ratio laid by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred hereinabove and going

through the factual aspects involved in this case, even accepting

what has been said by the petitioners/appellants about some

discrepancy in the answer sheet but such discrepancy as per the

argument advanced on behalf of the examining body, is for all

candidates, therefore, no prejudice will be said to be caused to the

petitioners/appellants.

The facts about treating all the candidates with respect to

the questions which contains the wrong answers along with the

petitioners/appellants is concerned, even if the marks would be

added of such questions in favour of the petitioners/appellants, the

same would also be awarded to other candidates and in that view of

the matter, there will be no change in the merit position as existing

on the date as because according to the petitioners/appellants, they

are short of one or two marks from the last selected candidate and if

one or two marks would be awarded to the petitioners/appellants the

same would be awarded to the successful candidates as well,

therefore, the fact remains the same with respect to the position of

the petitioners/appellants in comparison to the successful

candidates.

Further, there is no question of referring the matter before

the expert committee as has been argued emphatically by the

learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants in view of the fact that [18]

the petitioners/appellants although have been provided with the

opportunity of making objection but no such objection has been

made within the stipulated period, therefore, on the one hand the

petitioners/appellants have not availed the opportunity to make

objection in order to consider it and on the other hand seeking a

direction to refer the matter before the expert committee for its re-

evaluation, therefore, according to our considered view, if the

petitioners/appellants have not availed the opportunity provided by

the examining body it is not available for the petitioners/appellants

to seek a direction from this Court to refer the matter before the

expert committee for its re-evaluation, accordingly, the judgment

rendered in Rishal and Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public Service

Commission and Ors. (supra) is not applicable in the facts of this

case. However, the judgment rendered in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors.

vs. State of U.P. & Ors (supra) as also Vikesh Kumar Gupta and

Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) will well be

applicable in the facts of the case.

18. The petitioners/appellants have not come out with the plea that the

rule provides for re-evaluation and as has been held in the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court that unless rules permit, there

cannot be a direction for re-evaluation of the answer sheets.

19. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners/appellants for sending the answer sheets before the

expert committee is concerned, we, after going through the

pleadings made in the writ petition, have found that the plea to send [19]

the answer sheets before the expert committee has not been taken

before the writ Court.

In view thereof, the plea which has not been taken by the

litigant before the original court, the same cannot be allowed to be

taken in the intra-court appeal since the legality and propriety of the

order is to be looked into on the basis of the finding recorded in the

order of the original court which is based upon the pleadings made

by the parties before it.

20. We have gone through the judgment rendered by the learned Single

Judge wherein the learned Single Judge has considered the fact in

entirety as also putting reliance upon the judgment passed by this

Court in W.P.(S) No.568 of 2018 (Aashish Kumar Chaurasiya vs.

State of Jharkhand and Ors.) has dismissed the writ petitions. We,

therefore, have not found any illegality in the order impugned.

21. Accordingly, in our considered view, the learned Single Judge has

committed no error, therefore, we refrain ourselves in interfering

with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

22. In the result, all the appeals fail and are dismissed.

23. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J.)

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saurabh

A.F.R.