Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar Bhagat vs State Of Jharkhand on 28 April, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:12612
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.4928 of 2021
------
Sanjay Kumar Bhagat, son of Shri Jaleshwar Bhagat, resident of
Village Lundri, P.O. Tanger, P.S. Chanho, District Ranchi.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary/ Principal Secretary,
Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department,
having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
Town and District Ranchi.
2. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Secretary,
having office at Circular Road, P.O., G.P.O., P.S. Lalpur, Town and
District Ranchi.
3. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service
Commission, having office at Circular Road, P.O., G.P.O., P.S.
Lalpur, Town and District Ranchi.
4. Sri Mantosh Kumar Sinha, son of Sri Mahabir Prasad.
5. Sri Bijay Bahadur Singh, son of Late Jagdish Singh.
6. Sri Sanjay Kumar Choudhary, son of Sri Tapeshwar Choudhary.
7. Sri Nawal Prasad, son of Sri Ram Pratap Sahu.
8. Anu Ranjan Jha (UR), son of Shashidhar Jha
9. Shiv Balak Prasad (UR), son of Rajendra Prasad
10. Prem Kumar (BC-I), son of Baldeo Romani
11. Somnath Oraon (ST), son of Temba Oraon
12. Vijay Laxmi Sinku (ST), wife of Sukhlal Purty
... ... Respondents
WITH
W.P.(S) No.3513 of 2023
------
Prabhu Narayan Thakur, son of Late Bandhu Thakur, permanent
resident of Village Manakdiha, P.O. Dumma, P.S. Jamua, District
Giridih, Jharkhand - 815318.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary,
Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand-834002.
2. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Secretary,
having office at Circular Road, P.O., G.P.O., P.S. Lalpur, Town and
District Ranchi.
3. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission,
having office at Circular Road, P.O., G.P.O., P.S. Lalpur, Town and
District Ranchi.
4. Anu Ranjan Jha, son of Sri Shashidhar Jha
5. Shiv Balak Prasad, son of Sri Rajendra Prasad
6. Prem Kumar, son of Sri Baldeo Romani
7. Somnath Oraon, son of Sri Temba Oraon
8. Vijay Laxmi Sinku, wife of Sri Sukhlal Purty
... ... Respondents
1
2025:JHHC:12612
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J
------
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Sahadeo Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Sidharth Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.G.
Ms. Pinky Tiwari, AC to AG
Mr. Prabhat Kumar, SC-II
Ms. Surabhi Rani, AC to SC-II
Mr. Abhay Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
------
JUDGMENT
CAV On : 19.02.2025 Pronounced on : 28/04/2025
By way of filing these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought
for following reliefs:-
(i) To quash and set aside the order
communicated by Memo No.02/Pari.-
JPSC/11/2018-2084 dated 23.9.2020
(Annexure-6) issued under the pen and
signature of Examination of Controller,
Jharkhand Public Service Commission
(respondent no.3), whereby and whereunder, a
decision has been taken to allot one marks in
total 27 questions in General Studies paper to
all the candidates irrespective of the fact
whether such questions have been answered or
not, in respect of Advertisement No.05 / 2005
for appointment on the post of Deputy Collector
through limited competitive examination.
(ii) During pendency of the writ petition, the
operation, implementation and execution of the
reasoned order contained in Memo No.2084
dated 23.9.2020 (Annexure-6), and/or to direct
the respondents, in particular respondent nos.
2 and 3 not to publish the result inconsonance
with the impugned reasoned order dated
23.9.2020."
(i) To quash and set aside the reasoned order
contained in Memo No. 2080 dated 23.09.2020
(Annexure-5) whereby one marks has been
allotted to each candidate of 27 questions and
2025:JHHC:12612
as such prejudice has been caused to the
petitioner.
(ii) To quash and set aside the Press Release dated
14.01.2023 for publishing Provisional Result of
1st Deputy Collector (Limited) Examination,
2006, in respect of Adv. No.05/2005
(Annexure-6) issued under the pen and
signature of Controller of Examination,
Jharkhand Public Service Commission whereby
and where under 50 candidates have been
selected for appointment on the post of Deputy
Collector through limited competitive
examination on the basis of illegal and
unjustified allotment of one marks in total 27
repeated questions in General Studies Paper to
all candidates irrespective of the fact whether
such questions have been answered or not and
the same decision taken by the JPSC
respondent has already been challenged before
this Hon'ble High Court vide W.P.(S) No.4928
of 2021 which is still pending.
(iii) To quash and set aside the Press Release dated
24.01.2023 for publishing the date of
counselling of such 50 selected candidates on
25.01.2023 for verifications of their certificates
etc issued by the special Executive Officer,
Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of
Jharkhand (Annexure-9) in a very haste
manner to give undue and illegal advantage to
such candidates.
(iv) To quash and set aside the Notification No.01-
01/2023 Pers.1496 dated 13.03.2023 issued by
the Deputy Secretary, Department of
Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand
(Annexure-15) whereby and where under 45
successful candidates out of 50 selected
candidates have been provisionally appointed
and posted at Sri Krishna Public Administrative
Training Institute, Ranchi on the post of
probationary Deputy Collectors for getting
institutional training with effect from their date
joining.
(v) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order or direction to
respondents to bring on record of this Hon'ble
Court all answer sheets of both papers-1 & 2 of
successful candidates and these petitioners for
its comparative verification by the Hon'ble
Court or be directed to make a judicial enquiry
2025:JHHC:12612
or by an independent agency CBI to enquire
into matter because there is every possibility of
illegal gratification in the selection process
because result has been published after a lapse
of more than three years of examination held
on 03.01.2020 where as other similar limited
examinations i.e. 2nd, 3rd, 4rth & 5th (limited)
Deputy Collectors Examination results were
published within time of hardly six months
which creates a great suspicion.
(vi) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order or direction to
respondent no.2 to publish a fresh result of the
said examination on the basis of as is where
basis i.e. Without giving any common marks in
respect of 27 disputed & repeated questions of
5th Limited Examinations held two or three
months prior to this examination of 1st limited
Examination for the ends of justice.
(vii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order or direction to
Respondent no. 2 to consider the request
letters dated 03.04.2023 for revaluation of both
petitioners in respect of both answer papers 1
& 2 for the ends of justice."
2. Since the basic challenge in both these writ petitions are
same, both these cases are taken up together and were heard and
disposed of together by a common order.
3. It is the case of the petitioners they were Assistant
Teacher in Elementary School of the State of Jharkhand posted in
the District of Ranchi. The petitioners had been working in Class-III
post for more than five years on the date of the Advertisement, being
Advertisement No. 05/2005, published for appointment on the post
of Deputy Collector by Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination from those who are working on Class-III posts, having
experience of five years. Hence, being eligible, the petitioners
applied for the same and appeared in the examination on
23.04.2006.
4. The examination being under scrutiny of the Vigilance
Bureau was first investigated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and later
investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). This led to
2025:JHHC:12612
the cancellation of the examination on 13.06.2013. The notice
regarding the same was published on 13.06.2013 in Daily Hindustan.
A request to the JPSC for holding the examination afresh was made
by the Petitioners through a representation dated 04.10.2019. Fresh
admit card was issued to one or other candidates including the
Petitioners by the Commission to appear in the examination
scheduled to be held on 29.12.2019, which was later deferred to
03.01.2020.
5. Learned counsel representing the private selected
candidates submitted that it is within the domain of the respondents
to take a decision about the marks which are to be allotted.
Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) considered the case
and decided to allot one mark each in respect of 27 questions
irrespective of the fact whether the candidate has answered the
same or not or whether answered wrongly. Once the JPSC had taken
the said decision, it cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. JPSC has
got jurisdiction to take the aforesaid decision. He further submitted
that no one will be prejudiced if one mark is allotted to each
candidate in respect to those 27 questions as each and every
candidate who sat in the examination has been given the said mark
in respect of those 27 questions.
Learned counsel representing the respondent - JPSC
submitted that in compliance of the order dated 05.03.2020, the
JPSC passed the reasoned order dated 23.09.2020 vide memo no.
2084 dated 23.09.2020. That there is no criterion or law that a
written examination is to be cancelled on the basis that the questions
had been repeated. JPSC decided to give equal marks to all
candidates irrespective of the fact whether the candidates had
attempted the question or not, thus bringing a leveled playing
ground for all candidates. There was no discrimination made as it
was applied to all the candidates. Learned counsel submitted that
the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in ST category was
110 marks. In exclusion of the 27 marks, the total marks obtained
by the last selected candidate was 88. The marks that of the
petitioner in (W.P.(S) No.4928 of 2021) were less than the last
selected candidate under ST category even if the 27 pro-rata marks
2025:JHHC:12612
were granted to him. It is also apparent from the tabular chart that
the petitioners had actually obtained 33 marks (without addition of
27 Marks) in Paper-1, and obtained 60 marks (with addition of 27
marks). He had obtained only 28 marks in Paper-II i.e. less than the
qualifying marks; as such he was not selected.
6. In reply, learned counsel representing the petitioners
submitted that if one of those 27 questions have been wrongly
answered or has not been attempted by any of the parties, he is not
entitled to get one mark. Allotting one mark to them will amount to
giving undue advantage to them. By way of example, he submitted
that if one candidate has answered that particular question wrongly,
he should get "zero" (0) mark for the said question and the person
who answered correctly will get one mark. Thus, a difference is
created to the candidates which ultimately in aggregate will make a
difference and actually unsuccessful candidate become successful.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners
and others appeared in the examination and expected for result to
be published, but, however, in the meantime, the respondent nos. 4
to 8 approached this Hon'ble Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 516 of 2020
seeking for direction to conduct fresh examination of General Studies
paper, as most of the questions were repeated. This Hon'ble Court
disposed of the writ petition by order dated 05.03.2020 and directed
the respondent Commission to take a decision in the matter.
However, no direction was issued by this Hon'ble Court to allot one
marks for 27 questions to each of the candidates. Learned Counsel
argues that by way of reasoned order contained in Memo No.
02/Pari.JPSC/11/2018-2084 dated 23.09.2020, the Controller of
Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission (respondent
no.3), persuant to the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 03.01.2020
passed in W.P.(S) No.516 of 2020, passed the order, whereby one
marks has been allotted to each candidates of 27 questions
irrespective of the fact that whether he/she answered the same or
not. The petitioners along with others, on knowing the said order of
the JPSC, submitted a representation to the Controller of
Examination on 21.06.2021 stating the aforesaid order to be illegal
and arbitrary. A similar representation was made to the Secretary of
2025:JHHC:12612
JPSC, with a copy to the Secretary to the Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand on
28.10.2021. It is further submitted that without considering the
same and without disposing of the representation, the respondent-
Commission was going to publish the result on basis of the order
dated 23.09.2020. The counsel contended that such action amounts
to undue favour and suggested favoritism on part of the Commission
to those who were not even entitled to secure the minimum
qualifying marks of 40% as per the advertisement. It is stated that
the impugned decision has been taken in the name of the order
passed by this Hon'ble Court, wherein, no such direction as to allot
one marks to each of the questions, irrespective of the questions
been answered or not, was given to the respondent-Commission.
Leaned counsel has also contended that during the
pendency of Writ Petition vide W.P.C No. 4088 of 2022, which was
fixed for final hearing on 16.01.2023, the result of 1 st LDCR
Examination -2006 held on 03.01.2020 has been published on
14.01.2023 rendering the said writ petition to be infructuous. This
had caused grave prejudice and injustice to the unsuccessful
candidates as well the intervener petitioners.
7. From the arguments of the parties, I find that the issue
in these writ petitions is whether the JPSC was justified in allotting
one mark each for the 27 questions to each and every candidate who
appeared in the examination of Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination irrespective of the fact whether he has answered the
questions correctly, wrongly or not even attempted those 27
questions.
8. It is admitted that one mark has been allotted to 27
questions. This mark was allotted to all the candidates who has
appeared in the examination irrespective of the fact that whether he
had attempted the question or whether he had wrongly answered or
rightly answered. These 27 questions were also there in the last
examination and was repeated in the current examination also. It is
the case of the objectors that no questions can be repeated in
successive years. Repeating a question is illegal. Accepting their
objections, the JPSC had taken a decision to allot one marks each,
2025:JHHC:12612
across the board to all the candidates, which created this scenario
resulting in filing of these writ petitions.
9. As admitted by all the parties, these 27 questions are
neither vague nor there is any ambiguity in the questions or their
probable answers, nor their answers are wrong nor these questions
can have more than two answers. Only on the ground that these
questions were repeated, a decision was taken to universally grant
one mark each to the candidates.
10. The executive decision can be challenged on the grounds
of arbitrariness, reasonableness and rationality. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C.
Mazdoor Congress reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600, (para-
303), has held as hereunder:-
"303. .... Therefore, whenever there is arbitrariness in State
action -- whether it be of the legislature or of the executive
or of an authority under Article 12, Articles 14 and 21 spring
into action and strikes down such an action. The concept of
reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire
constitutional spectrum and is a golden thread which runs
through the whole fabric of the Constitution....."
The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India
in the case of Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution
Power Company Limited (APSPDCL) & Anr. V. M/S Hinduja
National Power Corporation Limited & Anr. reported in (2022)
5 SCC 484, has held as hereunder:-
"116. Undisputedly, the appellants - DISCOMS are
instrumentalities of the State and as such, a State
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
of India. Every action of a State is required to be
guided by the touchstone of nonarbitrariness, rea-
sonableness and rationality. Every action of a State
is equally required to be guided by public interest.
Every holder of a public office is a trustee, whose
highest duty is to the people of the country. The Pub-
lic Authority is therefore required to exercise the
powers only for the public good."
"118. It will also be apposite to refer to the following
observations of this Court in the case of Food Corpo-
ration of India v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Indus-
tries, (1993) 1 SCC 71:
"7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions,
the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform
to Article 14 of the Constitution of which nonarbitrar-
iness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered dis-
cretion in public law: A public authority possesses
2025:JHHC:12612
powers only to use them for public good. This im-
poses the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure
which is 'fairplay in action'. Due observance of this
obligation as a part of good administration raises a
reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen
to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State
and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a
necessary component of the decisionmaking process
in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of
nonarbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore,
necessary to consider and give due weight to the rea-
sonable or legitimate expectations of the persons
likely to be affected by the decision or else that un-
fairness in the exercise of the power may amount to
an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the
bona fides of the decision in a given case. The deci-
sion so made would be exposed to challenge on the
ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not com-
pletely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power,
as it is unrealistic, but provides for control of its ex-
ercise by judicial review.
8. The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of
a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a
distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and
give due weight to it may render the decision arbi-
trary, and this is how the requirement of due consid-
eration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the
principle of nonarbitrariness, a necessary concomi-
tant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation
is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a
fair decision-making process. Whether the expecta-
tion of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the
context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever
the question arises, it is to be determined not accord-
ing to the claimant's perception but in larger public
interest wherein other more important considerations
may outweigh what would otherwise have been the
legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide
decision of the public authority reached in this man-
ner would satisfy the requirement of nonarbitrariness
and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legit-
imate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law
and operates in our legal system in this manner and
to this extent.""
Further, the three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief
Executive Officer reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1682, has
held that:
2025:JHHC:12612
"56. ......Where State action is challenged on the
ground of being arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable, the
State would be under an obligation to comply with
the basic requirements of Article 14 of the Constitu-
tion and not act in an arbitrary, unfair and unreason-
able manner. This is the constitutional limit of their
authority....."
11. Arbitrariness is one of the ground to set aside executive
decisions. The word "arbitrary" as according to the Black's Law
Dictionary means "any act founded on prejudice or preference,
rather than on reasons or facts." Whenever both decision making
process and the decision are based on irrelevant facts, while ignoring
relevant considerations, such actions reflect "arbitrariness"
Further rationality / prudence also be a ground to set
aside an executive instructions or the executive decisions. The
decision which the Authorities are taking must be prudent. In
absence of prudence, the decisions / executive instructions can be
set aside.
12. In this case as narrated earlier, it is only on the ground
that the questions were repeated, one mark each has been given. It
is also admitted that if a candidate has answered wrongly to those
questions, he was also given one mark. A candidate who had even
not answered that question will also get one mark. Thus, the
candidates who had wrongly answered those 27 questions, have
derived undue advantage. If a candidate answered a question
wrongly, he is not entitled for any marks for the same. Awarding a
mark to that wrong answer is not only unjustified, without any
prudence but is also discriminatory towards the candidate who has
answered it correctly. This also amounts to depriving the candidate
who had given correct answer. The respondent cannot deprive the
eligible candidate by giving undue benefit to a candidate who is
ineligible. An unjust benefit has been extended to these candidates.
This has happened in this case.
13. Further, as held earlier, the question paper consists of
these 27 questions which were there in the question paper of the
previous year, were repeated in the current examination. There is no
legal bar that a question which was asked in a particular year cannot
2025:JHHC:12612
be repeated in the next year. It is the paper setter's / examiner's
discretion to set questions, which cannot be challenged. To test the
acumen of the candidates, some questions can very well be repeated
in the subsequent year. If the formulation of the questions is correct,
the candidate cannot question the action of the Authority on the
ground of repeating such questions.
14. Awarding one mark in these 27 questions has definitely
disbalanced the equilibrium. Everyone has got these 27 marks.
Ineligible candidates have also got 27 marks, which they were legally
not entitled to. By virtue of 27 marks, many of them have crossed
the hurdle. If these 27 marks were not awarded to the candidates
who have answered these questions incorrectly, there is high
probability that their position in the select list will go down and in
some cases, they may not even cross the qualifying line.
15. From what has been held above, I am of the opinion that
this action of the respondents in granting 27 marks to all of the
candidates does not withstand the test of prudence or
reasonableness. Rather, the same is manifestly arbitrary and
unreasonable. There is absence of principle of fair play in action of
the respondents. This action of the respondent in awarding one mark
each to those 27 questions irrespective of the fact whether he or she
has answered the same or not or whether the candidate has
answered wrongly, is set aside. Accordingly, Memo No.02/Pari.-
JPSC/11/2018-2084 dated 23.9.2020 (Annexure-6) in W.P.(S)
No.4928 of 2021 and Memo No. 2080 dated 23.09.2020 (Annexure-
5) in W.P.(S) No.3513 of 2023, are set aside.
16. The respondents are directed to evaluate the answer
sheets of each of the candidates as per merits, giving one marks
each to those who has correctly answered these 27 questions. The
candidates who did not attempt these 27 questions or have
answered them wrongly, should not be awarded any marks.
Consequently, the answer sheets of all the candidates should be re-
evaluated and a fresh merit list should be prepared and fresh
appointment be made on the basis of the said merit list. If any
candidate who has to be removed on the basis of the fresh merit list,
should be removed from service and if any new candidate enters the
2025:JHHC:12612
merit list, he/ she will be appointed. The entire process should be
completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of copy of this order.
17. Accordingly, these writ petitions stand allowed.
18. Pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
28/04/2025
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Prashant
AFR
