Krishnanand Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 1736 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Krishnanand Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 15 January, 2025

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        W.P.(S) No.3410 of 2024
                                   ------

1. Krishnanand Pandey

2. Lakhikant Rajak

3. Md. Kalim Javed

4. Utpal

5. Bhuneshwar Das

6. Samir Jaisurya ... ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi.

2. The Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through the Secretary, Circular Road, Lalpur, Ranchi.

3. The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road, Lalpur, Ranchi.

4. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Circular Road, Lalpur, Ranchi.

... ... Respondents

------

               CORAM       : SRI ANANDA SEN, J
                                   ------
   For the Petitioner(s) :     None present
   For the Respondent(s):      Mr. Faisal Allam, AC to SC Mines-III
                               Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate
                               Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
                               Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
                               Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate
                                   ------

04/ 15.01.2025

No one appears on behalf of the petitioners on repeated

calls.

2. I have gone through the writ petition.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they have appeared

in the preliminary examination pertaining to Advertisement

No.01/2024, which is the Combined Civil Services P.T. Examination

- 2023. The result of the petitioners was not declared and their

candidature was rejected. They were not qualified for the final

exams. The reasons have been mentioned by the petitioners

themselves in para-17 of the writ petition, stating therein that

respondent Nos.2 to 4 have not published the result of the

petitioners on the ground that they have not shaded the relevant

circles in the OMR sheets. In the prayer portion also, the petitioners

have admitted that they had not shaded the circles against their

roll numbers in the OMR sheets, though they had written their roll

numbers in the OMR sheets.

4. The effect of non-shading the circles against the roll

numbers in the OMR sheets and the booklet had been considered

by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4298 of 2024

(Jahnvi Singh & Anr. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors). In that

case also, the circles against the roll numbers in the OMR sheet of

the candidates were not shaded properly, thus, their candidature

was rejected. The Division Bench of this Court considering the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that if the circles

against the roll numbers are not shaded properly, the candidature

is liable to be rejected.

5. This case also stands on the similar footing. Thus,

considering the judgment dated 02.08.2024 passed by the Division

Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4298 of 2024 (Jahnvi Singh & Anr.

Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors), I am not inclined to grant any

relief to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

Prashant.Cp-2