Harshit Sharan vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 5420 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17803 of 2022
      ======================================================

1. Harshit Sharan, aged about 28 years, (Male) Son of Akhilesh Kumar Sharan, Resident of Town- Motihari, P.O. and P.S.- Town Thana, District- East Champaran, Bihar- 845401

2. Awadesh Kumar Chaudhary aged about 39 years, (Male) Son of Radhakant Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Gour Andhara P.O- Andhara Tharhi, PS- Rudrapur District Madhubani Bihar 847401

3. Munni Kumari aged about 26 years, (Female) Daughter of Late Fagu Besra, Resident of Village- Kushmaha P.O Dariyapur P.S.- Haveli, Kharagpur District Munger Bihar- 811213.

4. Anuradha Kumari aged about 27 years, (Female) Daughter of Ajay Sharma, Resident of Village- Panchmahala P.O.- Aganda P.S.- Belaganj Gaya Bihar- 804403

5. Vivek Kumar Pandey aged about 35 years, (Male) Son of Baleshwar Nath Pandey, Resident of P.S.- Agamkuan, P.O.- Lohia- Nagar Flat No. -103, Jagdish Residency, Shanti Niketan Colony, Bhoot Nath Road, in front of SBI, NMCH, Kankerbagh, B.H. Colony Patna, Bihar 800026

6. Birendra Kumar aged about 36 years, (Male) S/o Kaushlendra Kumar Singh, Resident of P.S.- Bazar Samati, P.O.- Rajendar Nagar Road No- 13B, Rajendra Nagar, Gumti, Shahpur, District- Patna, Bihar- 800016.

7. Ashish Deo aged about 28 years, (Male) Son of Tapeshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Town- P.O.- Lataura P.S- Triveni Nagar District- Supaul Bihar 852139.

8. Ayush Chawla aged about 30 years, (Male) Son of Ramswaroop Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village- Bakhari, P.S.- Fatehpur, P.O.- Nagwan Tarawan District- Gaya Bihar 805128

9. Mumtaz Ali aged about 28 years, (Male) Son of Shaukat Ali Mohiuddinagar, Resident of Town- Samastipur, P.S.- Mohuddin Nagar, P.O.- District Bihar- 848501

10. Om Prakash aged about 26 years, (Male) Son of Surendra Mishra, Resident of Village- Gandhinagar Bhuidhara P.O.- Dhurlakh, P.S.- Musassil, District- Samastipur, Bihar 848101

11. Rishi Raj aged about 25 years, (Male) Sod of Tuntun Singh, Resident of Village-

Nakki Nagar P.S.- Keshopur, P.O- District- Jamalpur, Munger, Bihar- 811214

12. Abhishek Kumar aged about 36 years, (Male) Son of Prem Kumar, P.O.- Mahatma Gandhi Nagar P.S- Agamkuan Samptachak Bhootnath Colony, District- Patna Bihar- 800026.

13. Vipul Kumar Singh aged about 24 years, (Male) Son of Umesh Singh, Resident of Village- Bin Bahuara, P.O.- Nagra P.S.- Madhuara, Saran, Bihar- 841442.

14. Digvijay Singh aged about 31 years, (Male) Son of Mohan Singh, Resident of Gadhamalpur Balia P.S.- Pakri, P.O.- Garhmalpur District- Ballia, Uttar Pradesh- 221709

15. Subhash Kumar aged about 29 years, (Male) Son of Ram Swarsth Yadav, Resident of Village- Harnahi P.S.- Phesar P.O- Unthu, District- North West Delhi, Delhi- Patna High Court CWJC No.17803 of 2022 dt.22-12-2022

110009

16. Mona aged about 27 years, (Female) Daughter of Jyoti Kumar, Resident of Pipra P.O. and P.S.- Parsa Bazar, District- Patna, Bihar- 804453

17. Neeraj Kumar Singh aged about 32 years, (Male) Son of A.K Singh, Resident of P.O. and P.S.- Manimajra, District- Chandigrah 160101

18. Nikhil Ranjan Tripathi aged about 28 years, (Male) Son of Udhao Prasad Tripathi, Resident of Sikhara, P.O- Sabarpur, P.S.- Khondare District- Gonda State Uttar Pradesh- 271313

19. Sarvesh Kumar aged about 31 years, (Male) Son of Shashi Bhushan Prasad, Resident of Village- Pasraila, P.S.- Rajauli, P.O.- Targir, District- Nawada, Bihar- 805125.

20. Amrita Kumari aged about 31 years, (Female) Daughter of Krishna Murari Sharma, Kaswan Kasain, P.O- Kaswan, P.S.- Parasbigha, District- Jehanabad, Bihar- 804419

21. Subhadra Bharti aged about 28 years, (female) Daughter of Late Ram Barayan Singh, Chowk Nagar Ward No.- 11 P.S. and P.O- Jainagar, District- Madhubani Bihar- 847226 ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

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

2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Special Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.

5. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.

6. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.

7. The Joint Secretary-cum-Controller Examination, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17806 of 2022 ====================================================== Vikash Kumar, Son of Suresh Kumar Ishwar, resident of Mohalla - Shivpuri, P.S. - Shashtri Nagar, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. Bihar Public Service Commission Bailey Road, Patna through its Secretary.

2. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.

3. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.

4. The Controller of Examination, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Patna High Court CWJC No.17803 of 2022 dt.22-12-2022

Appearance :

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17803 of 2022) For the Petitioners : Mr.Y. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. With Ms. Shrishti Singh, Adv.

Mr. Pranav Kumar Adv.

Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.

       For the State            :      Mr. Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG-3
       For the BPSC             :      Mr. Sanjay Pandey, with
                                       Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocates.

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17806 of 2022) For the Petitioner : Mr.Suresh Kumar Ishwar, Advocate For the State : Mr.Suman Kumar Jha, AC to AAG3 For B.P.S.C. : Mr.Sanjay Pandey, Advocate Mr.Nishant Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-12-2022

These two writ petitions are raising identical issues in respect

of the same procedure in relation to 67th Combined Preliminary

Competitive Re-Examination (for short 'the Preliminary Examination').

The learned counsels have, thus, submitted that the matter may be

considered together.

2. Mr. Y.V.Giri, learned senior counsel, represents the

petitioners in CWJC No. 17803 of 2022, whereas the petitioner of CWJC

No. 17806 of 2022 is represented by learned counsel Mr. Suresh Kumar

Ishwar. The respective learned counsels for State and BPSC have also

made submission. The relief claimed by the parties in both the writ

petitions are substantially based on a criticism of the answer key based on

which result of the Preliminary Examination has been declared.

3. In brief, the sequence of events leading to lodging of

the instant cases and which are not in dispute is that Advertisement for

the Examination was published on 24-09-2021. The Preliminary

Examination consisting of Multiple Choice Questions ('MCQ' for short)

was conducted on 30-09-2022. The petitioners participated in this

examination. Immediately, after the examination, i.e. on 01-10-2022, the Patna High Court CWJC No.17803 of 2022 dt.22-12-2022

Respondent-Commission came out with a provisional answer key,

containing model answers to the questions asked in the Preliminary

Examination. This provisional answer key was published along with an

"Important Notice" (Annexure-3 in CWJC No. 17803 of 2022), on the

same day, allowing an opportunity to the appeared candidates, which

includes the petitioners to raise an objection with respect to any of the

provisional answers, but with reference to authentic source/material. The

objection was to be submitted on the "objection form" prescribed in the

notice, giving name and other details of the appearing candidate,

through speed post, so as to reach the office of the Commission on or

before 5 P.M. on 12-10-2022. The notice further contained a clear

stipulation that objections received after the date and time specified will

not be considered. The objections received on the form were to be

subjected to a detailed examination by a Committee of subject Experts.

After such consideration, the final answer key was to be prepared by the

Committee, based on which the OMR answer sheet(s) were to be

evaluated.

Re. : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17803 of 2022)

4. These petitioners admittedly, have not filed any

objection to the provisional model answers. The impugned final answer

key along with the result of the Preliminary Examination has been

published on 17-11-2022. Thereafter, respondent-Commission on 25-11-

2022 has notified the schedule of the 67 th Combined main (Written)

Competitive Examination ( for short 'the Mains Examination') to be

conducted between 29-12-2022 to 31-12-2022. Only those candidates

who had emerged successful at the Preliminary Examination and whose

names figured in the result published on 17-11-2022, were allowed to Patna High Court CWJC No.17803 of 2022 dt.22-12-2022

appear for this Mains examination, as per the terms of Advertisement.

5. Immediately, one day after publication of the dates

for the Mains Examination, the Commission came out with the

additional result dated 26-11-2022. Photo copy of the same is Annexure-6

to the writ petition. From perusal of the same, the reasons necessitating

its publication are apparent. The answer key provided an answer choice

for one question, which was correct only for Hindi version of the

question. The answer choice for English version of the same question

was different. Therefore, upon consideration of the objections in this

regard, and finding the objection to be correct the Commission took a

decision that option "E: would be a valid answer for question booklet of

all series. As a result, those candidates who had chosen option "E" as the

correct answer were given one mark for this question. 15 candidates

across all categories, thus, emerged successful, within the earlier

determined cut-off marks. It is these 15 candidates whose results have

been notified as additional result dated 26-11-2022.

6. The petitioners have filed the instant writ application

seeking quashing of the result dated 17-11-2022 of the Preliminary

Examination published by the BPSC. The other relief prayed for includes

a direction to revise the result, produce the decision of the Panel of

experts on the objection filed pursuant to the provisional answer key and

to quash the same since the final answer key dated 17-11-2022, contains

incorrect model answers.

7. The petitioners have made specific allegation with

respect to a total of 10 questions, in series D question booklet, bearing

questions Nos. 1,2, 6, 20, 38, 97, 125, 130, 143 and 147. The learned

senior counsel for the petitioner has handed over a chart, wherein, the

provisional answers for the 10 questions, the final model answers, after Patna High Court CWJC No.17803 of 2022 dt.22-12-2022

consideration of objections; as well the correct answers, as per the

petitioners' assertion based on authentic and reliable sources, has been

mentioned.

8. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the

petitioners that this is a unique examination where the selection body,

namely, BPSC itself was not knowing the answers to the question that it

had asked in the competitive examination. It is only subsequent to the

Examination that the Commission has come out with the provisional

answer key containing the provisional answers to all the questions. Many

of these answers were wrong. The petitioners, in the circumstances, are

praying for re-evaluation of the final answer key by an expert body of the

Commission since the model answers for these ten questions, based on

which, the selection has been done, was incorrect, vitiating the result of

Preliminary Examination. He submits that the petitioners, in the writ

petition, have relied upon authentic source/material to show that the 10

models answers were wrong.

9. This Court would take note of the fact that after

publication of the final answer key on 17-11-2022, objection has been

filed by 5 out of 21 petitioners. Petitioner No. 13 has filed objection on

18-11-2022 and 14-12-2022. Petitioner No.10 filed his objection on 09-

12-2022, petitioner No.6 filed his objection on 14-12-2022, petitioner No.

19 filed his objection on 14-12-2022 and petitioner No.1 filed his

objection on 14-12-2022.

10. It is also submitted by learned senior counsel that by

the additional result dated 26-11-2022, 15 new candidates have been

declared successful for the purposes of participating in the Mains

Examination. However, surprisingly, not even a single candidate was

removed to accommodate them and the cut-off marks has also not Patna High Court CWJC No.17803 of 2022 dt.22-12-2022

changed. He submits that, in the circumstances, the result is vitiated.

11. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the

petitioners' case is distinguishable from the case of Ran Vijay Singh and

others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2018) 2 SCC

357. He has referred to paragraph Nos. 4,6,8,11, 30.3. and 33 of the said

judgment.

12. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the decision

of the Apex Court in the case of Rishal and others Vs. Rajasthan Public

Service Commission and others reported in (2018) 8 SCC 81, decision of

this court in the case of Prakash Chandra vs. State of Bihar through

the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna reported in 2019(3)

PLJR 983 affirmed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 798 of 2019.

13. Based on these precedents, it is submitted that this

Court should consider that the petitioners have succeeded in

demonstrating with reference to authentic source and material that the

model answers are wrong. Therefore, an expert committee, may be of

the Commission itself, should be directed to re-examine the model

answers. He submits that the petitioners have been placed marginally

below the cut-off marks. some of the petitioners have missed the cut-off

marks by one mark, and others by less than one marks. Therefore, as a

result of such exercise, the petitioners would emerge successful and

eligible for appearing at the Mains Examination to be conducted on 29-

12-2022.

14. Learned counsel for the Commission, on the other

hand, submits that none of the petitioners have filed objection to the

model answer key, pursuant to the opportunity granted under the

important notice dated 01-10-2022, whereby objections were invited on

the prescribed form in the notice itself.

Patna High Court CWJC No.17803 of 2022 dt.22-12-2022

15. From the writ petition, it is apparent that final

answer key was published and final result was also published on 17-11-

2022 in which petitioners have emerged unsuccessful. It is only,

thereafter, that out of 21 (twenty one) petitioners only 5 (five) have

claimed to have filed objections. It is settled law that having participated

in the selection process, and on being declared unsuccessful, candidates

cannot be permitted to challenge the process, much less heard to say that

the assessment criteria itself (model answers), were incorrect. More so,

when in the instant case the process of selection provided an opportunity

for raising objection regarding correctness of the provisional model

answers, which opportunity the petitioners have chosen not to avail.

16. He further submits that the law as regards the limits

and scope of interference with a selection process on grounds alleging

model answers to be incorrect, has been settled by decision of the Apex

Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra). No case is made out by the

petitioners for exercise of writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners.

17. Learned counsel has submitted that the other

decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners are

distinguishable on facts and do not help the petitioners' case.

18. Learned counsel for the Commission has relied upon

the following judgments:-

(1) 2018(2) SCC 357 ( para 30 to 32) (2) (2018) 7 254 ( para 10 to 14 and 15) Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, through its Chairman and Anr. vs. Rahul Singh & Anr. (3) 2022(3) PLJR 383 ( para 3 to 6) Vinod Kumar and othrs vs. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary and otrs.

(4) (2021)1 BLJ 673(PHC) ( para 43 to 48 and 52) Patna High Court CWJC No.17803 of 2022 dt.22-12-2022

Bihar Public Service Commission through its Chairman and others vs. Ashish Kumar Pathak and others.

(5) 2016(1) PLJR 865 ( para 54) Ravindra Kumar Singh v. The High Court of Judicature at Patna through its Registrar General and others.

(6) CWJC No. 11556 of 2021 ( Vivek Pandey and others vs. The State of Bihar and others)

19. Having considered the rival submissions, the

materials on record and citations relied upon, this Court would find that

in the process of selection, the respondent-Commission provided an

opportunity for raising objection to the provisional answer key. The

petitioners' grievance is that the answer option for 10 questions were

incorrect in the answer key. Still none of the petitioners have filed their

objections on the proforma prescribed when opportunity was granted by

the Commission, under its important notice dated 01.10.2022. The

petitioners have taken their chance and awaited the final result which was

published more than one and a half month thereafter i.e., on 17.11.2022.

It is only when they have emerged unsuccessful in the Preliminary

Examinations that 5 of the 21 petitioners claim to have sent objection to

the respondent-Commission with respect to the 10 model answers

alleging that they are incorrect.

20. Law in this regard is settled that after consciously

participating in the selection process and on being declared unsuccessful

the petitioners are estopped from challenging selection process by

alleging any infirmity in the process of selection. This issue is settle by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anupal Singh and others vs. State

of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary Personnel Department

and others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 173. A Division Bench of this Patna High Court CWJC No.17803 of 2022 dt.22-12-2022

Court also in the case of Ravindra Kumar Singh vs. the High Court of

Judicature at Patna & Ors. taking note of the settled legal position has

held that when petitioners took a chance of their success on the basis of

questions and model answers so framed, till the result was published, and

thereafter have become unsuccessful, they cannot be permitted to do hair

splitting of questions and model answers in order to take a plea that the

same were wrongly framed.

21. In view of the above noted settle position, the

instant petitioners also after participating in the Preliminary Examination,

and chosing not submit any objection to any question or answer in the

provisional answer key, in response to "Important Notice" dated 01-10-

2022 are estopped from turning around to challenge the result of the

Preliminary Examination. Having taken their chance and on being

declared unsuccessful, this Court would not permit them to allege that the

selection process was infirm moreso since the relief if granted would

adversely affect third party rights of those candidates who have emerged

successful in the process.

22. At this juncture, this Court would also observe that

the petitioners have not impleaded any of the successful candidates. On

this ground also, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.

23. Reliance placed by the learned senior counsel on

decisions, therefore, are of no avail. The case of Rishal (supra), has no

application, in the facts of the instant case. The direction issued by the

Apex Court in the case of Rishal (supra) are on a consideration of the

facts as obtaining in the said case. In the instant case, however, as quoted

above, the petitioners are estopped from assailing the selection process.

24. The submission of the learned Senior counsel with

respect to the additional result dated 26-11-2022, are also being noted Patna High Court CWJC No.17803 of 2022 dt.22-12-2022

only to be rejected. The fact that there is no corresponding change in the

cut-off marks or that there is no disqualification of any candidate to make

room for the 15 additional candidates, who have been declared successful

in the additional result, cannot be made the basis of presuming that the

result was suffering from any infirmity, much less to the prejudice of the

petitioners, who have not emerged successful in the process.

25. Fairness is manifest from bare perusal of the

additional result dated 26-11-2022, wherein one additional mark has been

granted to all candidates who have selected the answer option "E". The

beneficiaries of this exercise have been granted one marks across the

Board and, therefore, there is no occasion for any candidate to raise any

objection in this regard. This Court would further observe that 15

beneficiaries of this exercise who have been declared successful in the

Preliminary Examination in the additional result are drawn from all

categories. The benefits of the exercise leading to publication of the

additonal result, therefore, has been given uniformly and was based on a

bona fide exercise. The submission that cut-off marks has not changed is

also inconsequential, in view of the clear mandate, as contained in Clause

7(ii) of the Advertisement (Annexure-1) which reads as follows:-

"7.I. (ii) पप्रारभर भिक पररीकप्रा महज जजाँच

पररीकप्रा हहोगरी , भजसकक आधप्रार पर ममुख्य पररीकप्रा हकतमु

उम्मरीदवप्राररों कप्रा चयन भकयप्रा जप्रायकगप्रा। ममुख्य पररीकप्रा कक

भलिए चमुन क जप्रान क वप्रालिक उम्मरीवप्राररों करी सरख्यप्रा कमु लि

सरससूभचत भरभकतयरों करी दस (10) गमुणरी हहोगरी। कहोभटिवप्रार

समप्रान कटि ऑफ अरक पप्राप्त करनक वप्रालिक सभिरी

उम्मरीदवप्राररों कप्रा चयन ममुख्य पररीकप्रा कक भलिए भकयप्रा

जप्रायकगप्रा। " (emphasis mine).

Patna High Court CWJC No.17803 of 2022 dt.22-12-2022

26. It is apparent that the Advertisement itself provided

that when candidates ten times the number of seats were selected, based

on a cut-off marks, then all candidates, who had secured the cut-off marks

were also to be selected and declared successful for taking the Mains

Examination. Therefore, the fact that the cut-off marks has not changed,

even after these 15 additional candidates have been declared successful is

nothing, but a manifestation of this procedure prescribed in Clause 7(ii)

of the Advertisement. No infirmity can be alleged on this ground.

27. The legal position also now stands settled by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) with respect

to the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India. Paragraph Nos. 30, 31 & 32 of the said

judgment are considered worth reproducing in this regard:-

"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:

30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;

30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;

30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or Patna High Court CWJC No.17803 of 2022 dt.22-12-2022

scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate--it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;

30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and

30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse -- exclude the suspect or offending question.

32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities Patna High Court CWJC No.17803 of 2022 dt.22-12-2022

put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination -- whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."

28. In view of the forgoing consideration on facts and

law, this Court would find that no case is made out by the petitioners

within the settled legal principles for exercise of writ jurisdiction in

petitioners' favour, questioning the correctness of answers key in a

process of selection.

Re. CWJC No.17806 of 2022

29. Learned counsel for the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.

17806 of 2022 submits that this petitioner had submitted objections

within time, i.e. on 08.10.2022. The petitioner had raised objection

regarding nine model answers, details of which have been provided in the Patna High Court CWJC No.17803 of 2022 dt.22-12-2022

supplementary affidavit, wherein copy of the petitioner's objection on the

prescribed proforma has been annexed. The petitioner has objected to

model answers to question nos. 111, 135, 138, 67, 93, 42, 142, 88 and 98

of question booklet of Series-B.

30. It is also submitted that candidates more than 10

times that number of vacancies have been declared successful in the

general category for participating in the mains examination and as a result

the petitioner who is claiming benefits of reservation in the category of

dependent/ward of freedom fighter has been made to suffer. Prescription

in Clause 7(ii) of the advertisement has thus been violated.

31. Mr. Sanjay Pandey learned counsel for the

respondent-Commission has submitted that applying the settled

parameters for exercise of writ jurisdiction, as per decision of the Apex

Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), the relief prayed for by the

writ petitioner is fit to be dismissed. He has submitted that from bare

perusal of the form containing objections enclosed with the

supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, as well as the pleadings, it

is apparent that objection have been made casually and there is no

authentic basis for assailing the model answers.

32. This Court would find from bare perusal of copy of

the form containing petitioner's objections, as well as averments made in

the writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner has not referred to any

authentic source or material in support of his objections. He has not

mentioned the basis/source or material in support of the answers claimed

by the petitioner, with reference to which he alleges the model answers to

be wrong. Even in the petitioner's writ petition, he has not disclosed any

authentic basis, source or material in support of his objections. He has

made a vague assertion in paragraph-15 of the writ petition that he had Patna High Court CWJC No.17803 of 2022 dt.22-12-2022

submitted the objection to the nine model answers with "proof". In

paragraph 1(ii) he has stated that the petitioner and other candidates have

supplied the correct answers "on the basis of proof provided by the

reference book and Google".

33. The submissions advanced by the petitioner

regarding model answers being incorrect has to be considered by this

Court with reference to the nature of objections, as also the law laid down

by the Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra). The

petitioner's objections are not based on any authentic basis, source or

material and as such are not worth consideration in view of the

requirement in the "Important Notice" dated 26.11.2022 in response to

which petitioner has submitted his objection. As per this notice,

objections were required to be made on basis of authentic

source/material. The form of which petitioner has submitted the objection

(Annexure-9 to the supplementary affidavit) also contains a column for

specifying the authentic source/material. The petitioner has not specified

any source/material whatsoever in this column, much less any authentic

basis/source or material. The baseless objection of the petitioner is

contrary to the notice in response to which it has been submitted. The

requirement of objection being based on some authentic basis/source or

material, in the opoinion of this court serves a purpose. It ensures that

the objection is bona fide and substantial, and not only because a

particular candidates thinks that the model answer is wrong. Only if

authentic source/material for making objection is disclosed, the same can

be considered by the subject experts with reference to the same.

34. Secondly, the Court would take notice of the settled

legal position emanating from judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

Ran Vijay Singh (supra), in this connection paragraphs 30,31 and 32 of Patna High Court CWJC No.17803 of 2022 dt.22-12-2022

the said judgment, quoted above, has laid down the scope and limits of

exercise of writ jurisdiction. In the instant case this Court would find that

the petitioner has submitted his objection without reference to any

authentic basis, source or material. The objection is not in accordance

with the important notice dated 26.11.2022. It is also not as per the

prescribed form. The baseless objection claimed to have been submitted

by the petitioner does not make out any material error, much less any rare

or exceptional circumstance. Applying the bar as laid down in the case of

Ran Vijay Singh (supra), no case is made out by the petitioner for

invoking writ jurisdiction in his favour.

35. From bare perusal of the relevant Clause 7 (ii)

quoted above, which is relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent-

Commission, (copy of which has been handed over by learned counsel

for the petitioner in the course of hearing and is being kept on record) it is

apparent that the Advertisement specified allowing candidates ten times

the number of seats. At the same time, the Advertisement required that

the cutoff marks, based on which candidates, ten times the number of

seats are being called, to be uniformly applied to all appearing candidates.

All the candidates who secure this cutoff marks were required to be

declared successful.

36. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner

that candidates in excess of ten times the number of seats could not have

been called, is, therefore, without any basis. In fact the Advertisement is

explicit in its intention that after identifying ten times the number of

candidates, all such candidates who have secured the cutoff marks should

also be declared successful and allowed to participate in the mains written

examination. On going through Clause 7(ii) of the Advertisement

( quoted above), this Court would observe that the petitioner's grievance Patna High Court CWJC No.17803 of 2022 dt.22-12-2022

to this extent is also baseless.

37. Both the writ petitions, for the reasons indicated

above, are considered by this Court to be devoid of any merit.

38. Writ petitions are dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Shyambihari/ Shashank-

AFR/NAFR                  AFR
CAV DATE                  NA
Uploading Date            24-12-2022
Transmission Date         NA