Sanjay Kumar Aged About 34 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 5129 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sanjay Kumar Aged About 34 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 April, 2025

Author: Deepak Roshan

Bench: Deepak Roshan

                                                          2025:JHHC:12826

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            W.P.(S) No. 4685 of 2019
Sanjay Kumar aged about 34 years, son of Kali Bhagat, permanent
resident of Vill-Kasba GP-Longay, Mahagama PO- Kaswa Ps- Mahagama
Dist-Godda (Jharkhand); at present r/o- Vivekanand Colony, P.O
Begampur, P.S. Patna, District Patna, Bihar       ... ... Petitioner(s)
                                Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at
Project Bhawan, PO. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of
Jharkhand, having its Office at F.F.P. Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
4. The Transport Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand, having its
Office at F.F.P. Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
5. The Joint Transport Commissioner, Government of Jharkhand, having
its Office at F.F.P. Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District
Ranchi.                                        ... ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

For the Petitioner(s)             : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                                    Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent(s)             : Mr. Vaibhav Joshi, AC to SC (Mines)-III
                                    --------

Order No. 14/Dated: 24th April 2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following relief:

(a) For direction upon the respondents to relax the minimum cut off marks from 40% in General category and declare the petitioner successful followed by verification of his testimonials /certificates etc. as he has secured 39.30% marks, particularly on account of the fact that none of the selected candidate having secured more than cut off 40% marks, has been finally appointed due to their defective experience certificates and Driving License and thereby in derogation to the mandatory requirements as prescribed under Rule-4 of Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Inspector (Appointment, promotion and service condition) Rules, 2010.

(b) To declare and hold that since the Government have got intrinsic power of relaxation in case of hardship and difficulty in the matter of appointment and promotion, in the given facts and circumstances of the case it is otherwise desirable, expedient and in the interest of justice as a whole to relax the minimum cut off marks to the extent of securing

2025:JHHC:12826

sufficient candidate for regular appointment in conformity with constitutional concomitance.

And / Or

(c) For direction upon the respondents to round of the marks of the petitioner from 39.30% to 40% and accordingly to declare him successful in general category followed by verification of testimonials /educational and experience certificates as well as driving licenses and to accordingly appoint him on the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector as he otherwise possess all requisite experience and driving license in accordance with law.

(d) Further to declare and hold that in any way of the matter the petitioner and similarly others who has been declared unsuccessful by small margin of less marks than to that of minimum cut off marks in their respective categories, are better, more suitable and eligible than to that of retired army "expaged' Personnel who have been temporarily engaged on the post of Motor Vehicle Inspectors on Contract basis.

(e) For such other appropriate writ / order and / or direction / direction for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case.

AND/OR For issuance of any other appropriate Writ / Order / Direction for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case."

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the minimum qualifying marks in General category was 40%, however, the petitioner has secured 39.30% as such, the respondents should have rounded off the marks of the petitioner by giving him 40% and then calculate the position in the selection process because as per him if he had got 40% marks, he would have been selected for the post applied for.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the advertisement there was no such power for rounding off the marks while making the merit list of the candidates applied for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector.

4. Having regard to the aforesaid submission and after going through the advertisement as well as the Rule (Annexure-2 series to the writ application) it appears that there is no power given to the State Government or the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission to round off the percentage of any candidate before publishing the result.

In this regard, reference may be made to the case of "Orissa Public Service Commission and Anr. v. Rupashree Chowdhary and Anr."

2025:JHHC:12826

reported in (2011) 8 SCC 108 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that when there is no rule of rounding off or relaxation, then the action of rounding off cannot be granted. Paragraph nos. 10, 11 and 13 of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

"10. A bare reading of the aforesaid Rule would make it crystal clear that in order to qualify in the written examination a candidate has to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of the papers and not less than 45% of marks in the aggregate in all the written papers in the main examination. When emphasis is given in the Rule itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making it clear that at least the said minimum marks have to be obtained by the candidate concerned there cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding off. There is no power provided in the statute/Rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the minimum requirement. In our considered opinion, no such rounding off or relaxation was permissible. The Rules are statutory in nature and no dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory rules for giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation.

11. We may also draw support in this connection from a decision of this Court in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655]. In the said judgment this Court has laid down that: (SCC p. 658, para 6) "6.... when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, [then] it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement."

13. When the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous i.e. they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences, for the Act speaks for itself. There is no ambiguity o ambiguity in the language of Rule 24 leading to two conclusions and allowing an interpretation in favour of the respondent which would be different to what was intended by the statute. Therefore, no rounding off of the aggregate marks is permitted in view of the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 24 of the Rules under consideration."

5. Even the same view has been reiterated in the case of "Suresh Kumar Lalitkumar Patel & Ors. V. State of Gujarat" reported in 2023 LiveLaw SC 137 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that when the rules do not confer unbridled power either on the State Government or on the Selection Committee to modify the selection process and thereby reduce the cut-off marks after the result is published, then any action for rounding off either before or after the publication of result is not permissible.

6. By going through the prayers made in the instant writ application it also appears that the petitioner has also contended that State should not terminate ad hoc employees by appointing another group of ad hoc employees, is misplaced; as by going through the supplementary counter

2025:JHHC:12826

affidavit it appears that the same has been taken care of and pursuant to this advertisement, a subsequent advertisement was published in the year 2019; whereby regular appointment has been made. As such, no relief can be granted to this petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. However, no cost.

8. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amit