Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2085 of 2012 ====================================================== Sumit Kumar Thakur Son Of Shri Shyama Prasad Thakur Resident Of Bari Ashikpur (B.M.P.-9), P.S. East Colony, Jamalpur, District Munger Versus .... .... Petitioner 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna 3. Chairman, Selection Committee-Cum-Commandant, Bihar Military Police -03, Bodh Gaya, Gaya 4. Commandant, Bihar Military Police-03, Bodh Gaya, Gaya .... .... Respondents ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2081 of 2012 ====================================================== Rajeev Kumar Ranjan Son Of Shri Devki Das Resident Of Mohalla/Village - Marsua, P.S. Makhdumpur, District Jehanabad Versus .... .... Petitioner 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director General Of Police, Bihar, Patna 3. Chairman, Selection Committee-Cum-Commandant, Bihar Military Police-O3, Bodh Gaya, Gaya 4. Commandant , Bihar Military Police-03, Bodh Gaya, Gaya
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.2085 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Verma AAG5 Mr. Suman Kr. Jha, AC to AAG5 (In CWJC No.2081 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, AC to GA2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 4 16-04-2013 Heard counsel for the parties. 2. In both the writ applications the prayer of the petitioners is one and the same, namely a direction should be issued to the Respondents for appointing them on the post of Constable (Bigular) in terms of Advertisement No. 2 of 2011 Patna High Court CWJC No.2085 of 2012 (4) dt.16-04-2013 2 because they have been over looked while favouring of appointment lesser meritorious candidates. To that extent the only difference in the case of the two petitioners is that while the petitioner Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, in C.W.J.C.No. 2081/2012, belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, the other petitioner Sumit kumar Thakur, in C.W.J.C.No. 2085/2012, belongs to unreserved category. 3. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ applications, has submitted that the advertisement itself envisaged with the selection would be both on the basis of combined aggregate in the written and practical examination and the marks of written was 100 whereas the practical was also 100. He submits that in view of the fact that this selection criteria was already set out in the advertisement itself and the petitioners had participated in the same, he would not be in a position to question the norms of selection. 4. In view of the fact that there is no challenge to the norms of selection this Court will have to proceed only to the next aspect highlighted by Mr. Sinha. His submission in this regard is that the persons, who were adjudged less meritorious, in fact have been appointed, whereas the petitioners have been left out in Patna High Court CWJC No.2085 of 2012 (4) dt.16-04-2013 3 course of consideration by making some interpolation in their marks. To that extent he has placed reliance on Annexure ‘D’ to the counter affidavit filed in C.W.J.C.No. 2081/2012 and Annexure ‘C’ to the counter affidavit filed in C.W.J.C.No. 2085/2012. It has to be noted that Annexure ‘D’ is the final result prepared by the Selection Committee on the basis of marks of 45 candidates who had participated in the selection process for the post of Constable (Bigular). The submission of Mr. Sinha is that if serial no.8 as with regard to marks given to Shyamnand Kumar, the petitioner at serial no.18 Rajeev Kumar Ranjan and serial no.37 Sunil Kumar is taken into consideration it would be clear from the open eye that whitener was used for change of marks. Similarly on the basis of Annexure ‘C’ in C.W.J.C.No. 2085/2012 Mr. Sinha has submitted that the marks of the persons at serial nos. 1, 3, 4 and 22 have been scored out by high-lightener which is found to be missing in the same document contained in Annexure ‘D’ to the counter affidavit in C.W.J.C.No. 2081/2012. 5. This Court having regard to the scope of change in the mark sheet had not only called upon the counsel for the respondents to file counter affidavit but had also asked them to produce the original document on the basis of which photo copy of Annexures ‘C’ and ‘D’ to the two counter affidavits have been Patna High Court CWJC No.2085 of 2012 (4) dt.16-04-2013 4 filed. 6. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, learned AAGV and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, AC to GAII, have produced the copy of same document and from them it would transpire that when instruction was given either the concerned person had himself used the high- lightener for emphasizing the case of the petitioner vis-à-vis those who were selected or use of high-lightener was made by the petitioners themselves. In any event from the perusal of the document this much is clear that no use of whitener was made which by itself will rule out the prospect of changing the marks of the petitioners. The submission of Mr. Sinha that two photo copies of Annexures ‘C’ and ‘D’ of the same documents are not similar in fact also does not impress this Court. The quality of the photo stat machine will make a world of difference of the print taken out of the same document and therefore, once this Court has carefully gone into the aspect that there was no interpolation in the photo copy of the original selection list, Annexures ‘C’ and ‘D’ given to the counsel for the State and the counter affidavit which has been filed and the copies whereof has been also given to Mr. Sinha are only reproduction of the highlighted portion of the entries relating to the petitioners vis-à-vis of the selected candidates, this Court will not further go into the aspect, inasmuch as there is no Patna High Court CWJC No.2085 of 2012 (4) dt.16-04-2013 5 interpolation in the selection list. 7. In that view of the matter, once this Court would find that those persons who have secured higher marks to the petitioners either vis-à-vis unreserved category or reserved category have been selected and appointed, this Court will not find any merit in these two application and they are, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/-