Jharkhand High Court
Sachit Kumar Singh & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 18 July, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 297 of 2018
Sachit Kumar Singh & Anr. ... Appellants
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... Respondents
with
L.P.A. No. 473 of 2018
Narendra Singh ... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... Respondents
with
L.P.A. No. 474 of 2018
Bijayendra Kumar Sah ... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors ... Respondents
with
L.P.A. No. 475 of 2018
Raj Kishore Tiwari ... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors ... Respondents
with
L.P.A. No. 476 of 2018
Thaneshwar Ravidas ... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors ... Respondents
with
L.P.A. No. 580 of 2018
Manjay Kumar ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors ... Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Adv.
Mr. Subhashis Rasik Soren, Advocate
Ms. Shobha Gloria Lakra, Advocate
For Resp.-State : Mrs. Vandana Singh, Sr. SC. III
Mrs. Rashmi Lal, AC to Sr. SC III
Mr. Ruby Yadav, AC to SC-VI
For the JSSC : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
------
th
Order No. 25/Dated 18 July, 2023
1. Reference may be made to the order dated 17.07.2023,
in terms thereof, records pertaining to the appellants have
been produced and perused.
2. It appears from the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court particularly at paragraph-6, 8 and 9, which is being
referred as under:-
"6. At the outset, it is requires to be noted that
the original writ petitioners applied for the post of
Sub Inspector of Police. Their cases were not
considered for further appointment as they were
found ineligible, having failed to achieve the
minimum qualifying marks. They submitted their
objections with respect to nine questions and
according to the original writ petitioners, answers
with respect to nine questions were incorrect. The
Division Bench of the High Court has refused to
consider the objections on merits, mainly, on the
ground that objections were raised beyond the
prescribed period of submitting the objections.
The High Court has noted that the objections
were filed on 06.01.2018 and 08.01.2018.
However, it is the case on behalf of the original
writ petitioners that the first objection was
submitted on 01.12.2017 the copy of which is
placed on record (page 235 of SLP paper books).
Therefore, the High Court ought to have
considered the objections on merits and ought to
have considered obtaining the expert's opinion.
The High Court has as such taken too technical
view and has erred in refusing to consider the
objections on merits. At this stage, it is required
to be noted that even if, the objections were
raised on 06.01.2018 and 08.01.2018, the same
were prior to the date of the declaration of result
i.e., on 09.01.2018. Therefore, the High Court
ought to have considered the objections on merits
and/or called for the expert's opinion on nine
questions of which as per the original writ
petitioners, answers were incorrect. If the
expert's opinion would have been taken on the
correct answers and/or the answers with respect
to such nine questions for which the objections
were raised, the truth would have come out.
8. As the High Court has refused to consider the
objections on merits on the ground that the
objections were not raised within the stipulated
period prescribed for submitting the objections
and thereby, has refused to get the expert's
opinion, the matter is to be remanded to the
Division Bench of the High Court for fresh
consideration of the appeals on merits with the
observation that it will be open for the Division
Bench to call for he expert's opinion on the
questions of which their answers were alleged to
be incorrect for which the objections were raised
so that if ultimately it is found that the answers
with respect to some questions were incorrect
and consequently, the marks are added and they
may become eligible.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons
stated above, present appeals are allowed in
part. The impugned common judgment and order
passed by the High Court dismissing the Letters
Patent Appeals is hereby quashed and set aside.
Matters are remitted back to the Division Bench
of the High Court for fresh decision of Letters
Patent Appeals in accordance with law and on its
own merits and in light of the observations made
hereinabove. The Letters Patent Appeals on
remand be decided and disposed of at the
earliest preferably within a period of three
months from the date of the present order. As
observed hereinabove, it will be open for the
Division Bench of the High Court to call for the
expert's opinion with respect to the questions of
which the answers were alleged to be incorrect
for which the objections were raised. However,
the same is left to the High Court. Present
appeals are accordingly allowed in terms of the
present order. No costs."
3. This Court, by going through the observation, so made
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid paragraphs, is of
the view that nine questions, as have been referred in the
affidavit dated 22.06.2023, are required to be sent before the
Expert Committee, for its opinion.
4. The Staff Selection Commission is hereby directed to
constitute the Expert Committee and refer the entire details of
nine questions, as per the reference made at paragraph-4 and
5 of the aforesaid affidavit along with the materials in aid of
the Committee to furnish its opinion.
5. Let these matters be listed on 07.08.2023, so as to reach
the opinion of the Expert Committee on or before the next
date of hearing in a sealed cover.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
Rohit/-
