Muktesh Manohar v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
#6. Patna High Court through its Registrar General, Patna.
#7. Registrar General, Patna High Court, Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalan Kumar Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar Singh, A.C. to AAG-14 For the Respondents-BPSC: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate. For the Patna High Court: Mr.Amish Kumar, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 18-04-2013 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by a candidate who appeared at 27th Bihar Judicial Services (Mains) Competitive Examination conducted by the respondent- 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.8049 of 2013 (2) dt.18-04-2013 Bihar Public Service Commission and has failed. Pursuant to the enquiry made by the petitioner, he has been given photocopies of the answer sheets written by him. It is the grievance of the petitioner that some of the answers are not evaluated at all and that in certain answers the marks given are over written. The petitioner, therefore, wants re- evaluation of the answer sheets written by him. We have perused the answer sheets; the total marks given by the examiner and the marking against each answer. We do not see any substance in the grievance made by the petitioner. Petition is summarily rejected. Sujit/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.