Ujjwal Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2141 Jhar

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2141 Jhar
Judgement Date : 12 June, 2023

Jharkhand High Court

Ujjwal Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 June, 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               W.P. (S) No.2612 of 2020
                          -----

Ujjwal Kumar                                    .......... Petitioner.
                        -Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

2. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, Kotwali, Ranchi.

3. The Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Kotwali, Ranchi.

4. Sanjay Kumar Mahto .......... Respondents.

-----

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioner :        Ms. Abha Verma, Advocate
For the State        :      Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, A.C. to G.P.I
For JPSC             :      Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
                          -----
Order No.04                                     Date: 12.06.2023

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the final result published on 21st April, 2020 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) for the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination, 2016 in pursuance of the Advertisement no.23 of 2016, whereby the respondent-JPSC had added the marks obtained in Paper-I (being qualifying paper) into final result.

Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-JPSC submits that the issue with respect to publication of final result of 6th Combined Civil Services Examination, 2016 in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement has been set at rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court by virtue of judgment dated 25th August, 2022 rendered in the case of Barun Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.5812 of 2022] by which the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.201 of 2021 dated 23rd February, 2022 has been set aside. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment dated 25th August, 2022 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court are quoted here under:-

"43. In the instant case, the view which has been adopted by the Commission and that has been considered and held by the High Court in the impugned judgment may be better circumscribed but both are equally possible views and either of the one could not be ruled out or outrightly negated.

44. In the given situation, when one possible view has been acted upon by the Commission and pursuant to which the recommendations were made and after approval of the State Government, candidates have been appointed and are working for almost 2 years by this time, it will be unjust for this Court to now permit the Government to take a U- Turn in compliance of the impugned judgment, and non-suit the candidates who are working for sufficiently long time.

45. Though it has been observed by the High Court that equity may not be claimed by the candidates but this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that such of the candidates who are working for sufficiently two years by this time and have completed their period of probation were not at fault at any point of time but because the interpretation acted upon by the Commission was not acceptable to the High Court, they became a victim and that apart, we are also of the view that what is being observed by the High Court may only be confined to 6 Combined Civil Services Examination, 2016 for the reason that the State has now introduced the scheme of Rules, 2021 and fresh process has been initiated under 7 Combined Civil Services Examination 2016. In the given circumstances, what has been observed by the High Court may be one of the propositions in interpreting clause 12 and 13 of the advertisement but what is being considered by the Commission in its right earnest also cannot be ruled out.

46. It is well known that punctuation marks by themselves do not control the meaning of the statute when its meaning is otherwise obvious. The ordinary rule is that punctuation mark is a minor element in the interpretation of statute, more so, when it is a case of subordinate legislation. If we go through the scheme of the Rules 1951, we are clear that proviso to Rule 16 has to be read in conjunction to both Clause (a) and (b) and not to clause (b) in particular as being observed by the High Court in the impugned judgment.

47. It may be noticed that the judgment in Joy Guria (supra) referred to by the High Court is in reference to the preliminary examination and the Division Bench under the impugned judgment was influenced by those observations while examining the scheme of the main examination held by the Commission pursuant to 6 Combined Civil Services Examination, 2016. To the contrary, it was to be interpreted independently on the basis of the scheme of Rules 1951 read with Clause 12 and 13 of the advertisement.

48. Consequently, the appeals deserve to succeed and accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 23 February, 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. No costs.