P.O v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

Patna High Court CWJC No.14152 of 2012 (2) dt.18-01-2013 3 TRAINING COUNCIL, MAHENDRU, PATNA 5.THE SECRETARY BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA. .... .... RESPONDENT/S =================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s:Mr. Suman Kumar For the Respondent/s:Mr. Ravindra Kr Choubey SC-8 =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2/ 18-01-2013 Heard counsel for the parties. In this writ application the following prayers have been made by the petitioner:- appointment I. For issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction restraining the respondents from giving candidates who had been declared Bihar qualified Secondary/Senior Secondary Teacher Eligibility Test (BSITET) 2011 which is based on bungglings and irregularities. II. For issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction commanding the respondents to published the results of the petitioner nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 6, 12, 23 and 30 which has been most arbitrarily and quite malafidely withheld or declared invalid. III. For issuance of a writ of certiorari appropriate writ, direction for quashing the result Secondary/Senior Secondary Teacher Eligibility Test (BSITET) 2011 recently released by Examination School Board, Patna on website/net which is purely based on bugglings and arbitrariness. IV. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order of direction for re- evaluation of the answer sheets of Bihar Bihar Patna High Court CWJC No.14152 of 2012 (2) dt.18-01-2013 4 150 (hundred all the petitioners particularly petitioner nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 to 22, 24 to 29, 31 and 32 who all have given correct answers of more than 100 (hundred) questions out fifty) questions but most arbitrarily in most of the cases they have been awarded very low marks in order to deprive them from passing the tests and getting employment. V. For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for giving special restore to the petitioner no. 3 who is physically handicapped and to petitioner nos. 22, 24 and 32 who are women as provided under Central Teacher Eligibility Test (C.T.E.T.) clause because the petitioner has learned that the adequate number of candidates in relation to the available post for the reserved categories have not been declared qualified. VI. For issuance of an appropriate direction writ, respondent commanding special authorities concessions qualifying Bihar Secondary/Senior Secondary Teacher Eligibility Test (BSITET) 2011 to the petitioner no. 9, 11, 12, 13 to 16, 19, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 27 to 31 as they are trained candidates. VII. For appropriate direction respondents to cancel the results of all those candidates numbering about two and half lacs whose application form were not complete and at the elementary stage during entertained but subsequently most arbitrarily and quite malafidely on the same rejected forms they have been allowed to appear at the test. issuance writ, commanding relation scrutiny course Patna High Court CWJC No.14152 of 2012 (2) dt.18-01-2013 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner has however in course of making his submission in sub paragraph no. 1 confined his prayer made in para II and IV which for sake of clarity is reproduced hereinbelow:- For issuance II. For issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction commanding the respondents to published the results of the petitioner nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 6, 12, 23 and 30 which has been most arbitrarily and quite malafidely withheld or declared invalid. IV. appropriate writ, order of direction for re-evaluation of the answer sheets of all the petitioners particularly petitioner nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 to 22, 24 to 29, 31 and 32 who all have given correct answers of more than 100 (hundred) questions out of 150 (hundred and fifty) arbitrarily in most of the cases they have been awarded very low marks in order to deprive them from passing the tests and getting employment. questions Mr. Manish Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners will have a right to at least look into their answer sheets but even when they have applied for its copy, the same is not being furnished to them in terms of Right to Information Act

2005. He has also in this regard relied on an order of this Court dated 24.09.2012 passed in Patna High Court CWJC No.14152 of 2012 (2) dt.18-01-2013 6 C.W.J.C No. 14866 of 2012(Chin Chin Kumaree and Ors vs The State of Bihar and Anothers). Learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board having filed the counter affidavit on the other hand has drawn attention of this Court towards its paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6 which for sake of convenience is also quoted hereinbelow:- already "That so far petitioner no. 1 and 4 is concerned on the basis of representation grievance redressed. The petitioner no. 1 has obtained 77 marks in social science paper and as such is not qualified Bihar Secondary/Senior Secondary Teacher Eligibility Test(BSITET) 2011. So far petitioner no. 4 is concerned he has obtained 97 marks in paper 1 and as such he is qualified in paper 1. The marks of paper no. II is already printed in the marks statements contained in Annexure-2 series page 34. That so far petitioner no. 2, 3, 9 & 39 is concerned their matter is still under process. The Computer centre (confidential) is being requested to verify the claim and to make available the result and photocopy related to petitioner no. 2, 3, 9 & 33. The matter is likely to be resolved within next fifteen days. That so far petitioner no. 5, 6, 12, 23 & 30 is concerned it is humbly submitted and stated here that the Question Booklet of the said examination was in four set. It was required by the candidates to enter hir/her Roll Number, Question subject correctly so that the answer book could be evaluated by Booklet number Patna High Court CWJC No.14152 of 2012 (2) dt.18-01-2013 7 the computer. For entry of the above details in OMR Answer Sheet instruction was given in the Question Booklet. With respect to instruction for entry of Question Booklet number it was specifically stated that the candidate must ensure that the Question Booklet No. has been filled correctly at the prescribed place in the OMR Answer Sheet. Similar instruction was also given on OMR Answer Sheet. As per presently available blank/invalid booklet number in their OMR Answer Sheet as such their answer sheets have not been evaluated. The petitioner no. 23 in this writ application has even not mentioned his roll number of the said examination. On the basis of name and father’s name his roll number was searched as 1007110339." He has also referred to an order of this Court dated 23.11.2012 passed in C.W.J.C No. 17199 of 2012 to buttress his submission that similar claim of the same examination as has been rejected by this Court. Finally, he has also referred to the aspect of revaluation of OMR answer sheet and in this regard he has placed his reliance on paragraph no. 8 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows:- "That so far re-evaluation of OMR answer sheet of the said examination is concerned it stated here that after declaration of results, received by the Board for which the Board on 12.08.2012 in order to redress complaints grievances Patna High Court CWJC No.14152 of 2012 (2) dt.18-01-2013 8 candidate issued an advertisement in the daily newspaper stating inter alia as follows: (i) Mistakes while filing up OMR sheet is not admissible. (ii) Request inspection/re-evaluation would not be entertained as OMR sheets has been examined by Computer." re- In the considered opinion of this Court a joint writ petition of 33 writ petitioners each one having altogether different set of facts and grievance is not maintainable for more than one reason. The petitioners have not even been careful to make their bunches and everyone has pooled together to assail the result of examination which has resulted into total confusion both in the pleadings as also in the submissions. One thing is, however, clear that neither side happens to be clean or clear on the crucial aspects. If an open competitive examination is conducted the examinee will have definitely a right to know about his/her performance. If he/she has some doubts about his/her performance in examination, he/she can obtain permissible information from the authority conducting such examination under Right to Information Act. If there be any mistake the authority also is required to Patna High Court CWJC No.14152 of 2012 (2) dt.18-01-2013 9 correct accordance law. Evaluation in this respect in any event has to be fresh and transparent. At the same time if all the examinees will start questioning the process of evaluation, as has been done in this case by the 33 petitioners, it would be impossible for the examining and selecting body to perform its duty. In view of the fact that in case of Chinchin Kumaree (supra) this Court has already made certain observations as with regard to directing the respondents to act in accordance with law, in respect of supply of copies and/or the answer sheets under R.T.I Act, this Court would also give liberty to the petitioners to approach the authorities for the same relief. Once such information including copies are made available to them they may file their individual writ petition confined to their separate grievance. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Ranjan