Dinesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
For the aforesaid reason, the petition is dismissed in
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. The Deputy Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent- High Court: Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent-State: Ms. N. Nirvikar, GP 3…
Judgment
The Registrar General, Patna High Court
The Law Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department (Personnel and Administrative Reforms), Patna
The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Secretary
The Deputy Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent- High Court: Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent-State: Ms. N. Nirvikar, GP 3 For the Respondent-BPSC: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 05-08-2013 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by a practicing lawyer to challenge the result of 27th Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission in January 2012 for selection and appointment to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the State of Bihar.
Evidently, the petitioner has failed at that Patna High Court CWJC No.7017 of 2013 (3) dt.05-08-2013 examination. Learned counsel Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that the answer- sheets submitted by the petitioner have not been properly evaluated. If the answer-sheets were properly evaluated and appropriate marks were given to the petitioner, he would have passed the examination. Mr. Singh has submitted that this Court in the matter of Khushboo Shrivastava Vs. The Union of India & Ors. [2009 (2) BBCJ 320] directed re-evaluation of the mark- sheets. Similar relief had been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sahiti & Ors. Vs. The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors. [2008(8) Supreme 89]. He has submitted that similar course be adopted in the present case. True, in both the above referred matters, this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court did order re-evaluation of the answer- sheets in respect of the students taking entrance examination for admission to medical course.
Operative part
However, in neither of the aforesaid judgments the Court has settled a universal principle that in all such matters re-evaluation should be permitted. In absence of any specific rule for re-evaluation made by the Bihar Public Service Commission, we do not propose to direct re-evaluation of the mark-sheets, lest a very unhealthy practice will develop for getting the answer papers re-evaluated wherever the students have failed or have received marks less than desired / expected. We may also mention that we have examined copies of the answer papers produced on the record. Prima facie, we do not find the answers submitted by the petitioner under evaluated. Patna High Court CWJC No.7017 of 2013 (3) dt.05-08-2013 For the aforesaid reason, the petition is dismissed in limine. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) Dilip. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For the aforesaid reason, the petition is dismissed in
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.