Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17838 of 2013 ====================================================== Pawan Kumar, son of Sri Dinesh Prasad Singh, resident of village Muzwar Tal, P.S. Manihari, District- Katihar. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission through its Secretary, near Veterinary Collector, Patna-14. 2. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, near Veterinary College, Patna-14. 3. The State of Bihar the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna- 800001. through .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Navin Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Narayan Singh, Advocate For the BSSC : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Priyadarshi, S.C.17. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 3 31-10-2013 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State as well as Staff Selection Commission. Through this writ application, petitioner seeks the following reliefs :-
Legal Reasoning
“i) For issuance of direction to the respondent nos.1 and 2 to publish the result of petitioner in Graduate Level First Preliminary Combined Competitive vide Advertisement No.110/2010 conducted by Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) after correcting the model answer of question no.41 of General Studies paper of the said examination. Examination-2013 ii) For direction to the respondents to conduct separate main examination after the petitioner is declared successful in the aforesaid examination conducted by the said Commission. iii) For direction to the respondents to keep one post vacant for which the petitioner is eligible and 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.17838 of 2013 (3) dt.31-10-2013 2 / 5 declared successful. iv) For any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner facts and circumstances of the case.” is entitled the for in It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he appeared in the Graduate Level First Preliminary Combined Competitive Examination pursuant to Advertisement No.110 of 2010 for appointment on the post of Secretariat Assistant, Junior Accounts Officer, Supply Officer, Block SC and ST Welfare Officer, Labour Welfare Officer, Women Social Welfare Coordinator and Statistics Sanganak. It is submitted that the petitioner could not succeed as per the result which was declared by the authorities on 12.4.2012. Thereafter, model answers to the question which were the subject matter of the test were put on the Website of the Staff Selection Commission, a copy of which has been appended as part of Annexure-3. Learned counsel submits that there were many irregularities in the model answers as incorrect answers were reflected in Annexure-3. One of such wrong answer was to the Question No.41. The question was as to who is known as “Father of Green Revolution in India”. Out of four answers [A] has been recorded as correct answer in the model answer provided by the Commission which was wrong as according to the petitioner it should be B. This is admitted position that several writ petitions 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.17838 of 2013 (3) dt.31-10-2013 3 / 5 came to be filed by different candidates raising the issue of wrong answers reflected in the model answer including this Question No.41. Thereafter, an Expert Committee was set up by Commission which gave its report and as per report of the Expert
Decision
Committee, result was revised and the writ petition was ultimately dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the cut off marks of the Preliminary Test was disclosed by the Commission after result of the main written examination on the Website and only then the petitioner could come to know that he is just below of the cut off marks. Thereafter, this writ petition came to be filed. It is admitted position that several writ petitions were filed immediately after Model Answer was put on the website by the Commission. Admittedly, one of the grounds raised was incorrect answer of the Question No.41. After coming of the report of expert committee, the writ petitions were disposed of vide Annexure 7. The decision of the Single Bench came to be challenged in Letters Patent Appeal No.98 of 2013 and analogous matters. Learned counsel submits that the issue of wrong answer of Question No.41 was raised before the Single Bench as also in the Letters Patent Appeal also but it appears that the same could not be considered either by the Single Bench or by the Division 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.17838 of 2013 (3) dt.31-10-2013 4 / 5 Bench and ultimately, the L.P.A. was also dismissed vide Annexure 8. Thus, it is contended that if the result is revised as per the correct answer then the petitioner would succeed in Preliminary Examination and would have a chance of appointment as he obtained necessary marks more than a cut off marks which was fixed by the Commission. However, this Court cannot grant the relief sought in this writ application chiefly on three grounds. First is that it is well settled that a Court cannot assume the role of examiner or Expert Committee and take a decision with regard to correctness of the question or the answer. Secondly, several writ petitions came to be filed by different candidates when the model answer was put on the Website. Even if it is assumed that model answer to the concerned question is wrong then that fact was well known to the petitioner on that day itself but he did not take the matter either by approaching the authority concerned or by approaching any other forum. Lastly, several candidates admittedly approached this Court and this issue with respect to correctness of answer of Question No.41 was also admittedly raised in writ petitions filed and ultimately, the writ petitions were considered and disposed of on merit and that the order of Single Bench was assailed in a Letters Patent Appeal which was also dismissed. Thereafter, there 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.17838 of 2013 (3) dt.31-10-2013 5 / 5 would not be any occasion for this Court to again start scrutinizing the model answer to the Question No.41 and reopen the issue specially when now the written examination has also been conducted and final result has been declared after certain issues were raised and challenged in the writ petitions and that were disposed of by a Single Bench in Dhananjay Kumar Mishra & Ors. Vrs. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Ors., 2013(4) PLJR 169. This Court cannot examine in this proceeding as to whether, even after raising the issue of correctness of answer supplied by the Commission with respect to Question No.41, that was actually examined in the earlier writ petition or by the Division Bench in L.P.A. or not because the final decision has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court after considering the issues involved. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. N.H./- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)