Vaibhav Gupta vs Bihar Public Service Commission
2021 Latest Caselaw 1530 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7429 of 2021
     ======================================================

Meha Verma, Daughter of Rajani Kant Verma, Resident of Hanuman Nagar, Police Station- Patrakar Nagar, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of General Administration, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Chairman 15, Jawahasr Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.

3. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, bailey Road, Patna.

4. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, bailey Road, Patna.

5. The Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, bailey Road, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7595 of 2021 ======================================================

1. Vaibhav Gupta S/o Sri Pradeep Kumar Gupta R/o Milikiyana West, Post-

salon, District- Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh - 229127

2. Apoorva Jyoti S/o Amar Jyoti Srivastava, R/o 363, New Colony, Behind Home Guard Office, Arazibagh, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh-276001

3. Dheeresh Kumar S/o Brijesh Sharan Agnihotri R/o Pratap Nagar, Kamalganj, Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh- 209724

4. Ambrish Kumar S/o Ompal Singh R/o Neemka Shahjahanpur, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh- 203155

5. Pankaj Kumar Chauhan S/o Ramagya Chauhan, R/o Village- Shatrudhanpur, Post- Futahawa Inar, District- Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh- 273202

6. Pawan Kumar Saini S/o Sri Cheetan Lal saini R/o Village and Post- Dhuswa Khas, Mankapur, District- Gonda, Uttar Pradesh- 271302

7. Meenakshi Pandey W/o PD Dwivedi R/o Behind Sardar Bawa singh House, Mohaddiput North, District- Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh- 273008

8. Rohit Kumar Srivastava S/o Nagendra Prasad Srivastava, C/o Santosh Kumar Sinha, R/o Barka Gam, Maan singh Patti, Buxar, Auodoyogik, Bihar,

- 802101

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Bihar Public Service Commission Bihar

2. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna Patna High Court CWJC No.7429 of 2021 dt.18-03-2021

3. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna

4. The Joint Secretary cum Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7429 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar, Advocate Ms. Aishwarya Shree, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saroj Kr. Sharma, AC to AAG-3 For the Commission : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7595 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Advocate Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY)

Date : 18-03-2021

As in both these writ applications, a similar issue has

been raised, as such, same are being taken up together and are

being disposed of by a common order.

Heard the parties.

For convenience facts of the case of Meha Verma

(CWJC No.7429 of 2021) is being taken into consideration.

In CWJC No.7429 of 2021, the petitioner is raising her

grievance with respect to one question i.e. Question No. 126

wherein four options have been given and the petitioner has

marked 'C' whereas as per the Bihar Public Service Commission

'D' is the correct answer.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7429 of 2021 dt.18-03-2021

Similarly in CWJC No.7595 of 2021, the petitioners are

raising their grievance with respect to Question Nos. 46 and 128 of

the 'B' series booklet.

Counsel for the petitioner of CWJC No.7429 of 2021

submits that the Commission has wrongly given 'D' is the correct

answer, whereas, in fact, 'C' is the correct answer and he has

placed reliance upon the judgment of High Court.

Counsel for the petitioners of CWJC No.7595 of 2021

submits that the Commission has wrongly given 'D' is the correct

answer whereas in fact 'C' is the correct answer.

After examination was conducted, the Commission has

issued a notice dated 19.12.2020 in its website, asking the

candidates that the model answer (provisional) would be available

on the website if any candidate has to raise objection with regard

to any item of model answer, they are at liberty to do the same, but

it must reach on or before 31.12.2020 at 5.00 P:M in close

envelope mentioning the advertisement number and that will be

looked into by the Expert and after discussing the objection so

raised by the different candidates, final answer list will be

prepared.

It is admitted fact that the petitioners have not raised any

objection with regard to the model answer given in the notice and Patna High Court CWJC No.7429 of 2021 dt.18-03-2021

after the final result, these writ applications have been filed taking

a plea that in the advertisement, there is no such procedure has

been prescribed that after the examination will be conducted the

model answer will be published in the website asking the

candidates to raise objection, so the Commission cannot change

the procedure in the midway, whereas the Commission says that it

is a standard procedure, which is adopted by every examining

body in order to make the candidate to sure the answer, which has

been given as correct or incorrect answer, so opportunity has been

given to each and every candidate to suggest the answer, which is,

according to the candidate, is wrong, same will be looked into by

the Expert body and if it is found that the suggestion given by the

candidate is correct then the answer has to be modified

accordingly.

Admittedly the petitioners have failed to raise objection

as per the notice published in website of the Commission and now,

after the final result of preliminary test, they are raising objection

about the correctness of answer which they cannot be allowed to

take round and challenge the answer.

The second point has been raised by the petitioners that

the candidate is not expected to visit every day the website of the

Commission, but the question would arise that when a standard Patna High Court CWJC No.7429 of 2021 dt.18-03-2021

procedure has been prescribed, it is known to all candidates that

the model answer (provisional) will be published on the website

which the candidates are required to visit. If they failed to visit,

they cannot blame the Commission.

The third point has been raised by the petitioners that

there is no statutory provision prescribing the procedure for the

model answer and raise objection. If the candidate has not raised

any objection, does not mean that he will be debarred. He has

placed reliance on the judgment dated 25.11.2014 of this Court

passed in CWJC No. 13999 of 2014, but later on this issue has

been gone into by the Division Bench in the case of Ravindra

Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2016(1) PLJR 865 in

which this Court has occasion to look into the procedure to be

adopted by the Commission and specifically it has been directed

that when the examination is conducted, the model answer has to

be published in the website asking the candidate to raise objection

if any within the stipulated time, if the objection is raised, the

Expert will look into it and if it is found that objection raised is

correct, in such circumstances, it has to be modified accordingly

and this standard procedure has been adopted by each and every

examining body. The aforesaid view has been taken on the basis of

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, as such, judgment of learned Patna High Court CWJC No.7429 of 2021 dt.18-03-2021

Single Judge cannot hold the field and this plea has no substance

and the same is rejected.

In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any

merit in these writ applications and, accordingly, the same are

dismissed.

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

( Partha Sarthy, J) V.K.Pandey/-

AFR/NAFR                N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE                N.A.
Uploading Date          19.03.2021
Transmission Date       N.A.