Krishna Murari Singh .... .... … v. The Union of India through CBI
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3349 of 2022 ------ Krishna Murari Singh .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The Union of India through CBI .... .... ....Opposite Party WITH A.B.A. No.2818 of 2022 Kanti Devi .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The Union of India through CBI .... .... .... Opposite Party WITH A.B.A. No.3743 of 2022 Sanjeev Kumar .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The Union of India through CBI .... .... .... Opposite Party WITH A.B.A. No.4005 of 2022 Rajendra Kumar Baraik .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The Union of India through CBI .... .... .... Opposite Party WITH A.B.A. No.4202 of 2022 Ashok Kumar Singh .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The Union of India through CBI .... .... .... Opposite Party WITH A.B.A. No.4421 of 2022 Binod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar Versus .... .... …. Petitioner The Union of India through CBI .... .... .... Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
the basis of the direction given by this Court in L.P.A. No. 243 of 2009 for appointment of Dr Bharti Singh who had obtained 72 marks and the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 35974 of 2009. The petitioner having obtained higher marks than Dr. Bharti Singh was later on appointed. 7. Heard learned counsel on behalf of petitioner-Krishna Murari Singh, in A.B.A. No. 3349 of 2022. As per the prosecution case, petitioner-Krishna Murari Singh was declared selected on the basis of 46 marks for his career and 29.25 marks for interview i.e. total 75.25 marks. However, CFSL deciphered that this petitioner was marked (i) 28 by one expert which had been manipulated to 38 in the assessment chart (ii) 30 by two experts had been manipulated to 36. He deserved only 23.75 marks in the interview. This petitioner deserved only 40 mark out of 60 mark on the basis of his career whereas he was illegally awarded 46 mark in order to cause undue favour to this petitioner in his application from was declared having scored 57% in class and he had been illegally marked 10 out of 10, instead of 7 out of 10. Similarly, he deserves 4 out of 10 but he was illegally marked 7 out of 10. As such, this petitioner deserved total 63.75 marks whereas the minimum mark required was 75. It is submitted that the allegation of manipulation is solely based on the opinion of the expert of CFSL regarding the manipulation in marks. There is no material to link with the petitioner that he was in any way responsible for the alleged act. This petitioner was not the beneficiary. He was the Ph.D. holder. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was Ph.D. holder which has come in the investigation at page 82 of the chargesheet. 8. Learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that these petitioners are beneficiaries of manipulation in the recruitment process. Considering the submissions made, investigation is concluded, charge sheet already submitted and similarly situated accused persons have been granted bail by the Apex Court, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. 5 Accordingly, the petitioners, above named, are directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of two weeks and in the event of their arrest or surrender, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court below, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners will co-operate in the investigation and will appear under Section 41A Cr.P.C. as and when required and comply with the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Anit/AKT (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Arguments
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : M/s Mahesh Tiwari & Pran Pranay, Advocates (In ABA No. 3349 of 2022) Mr. K.S. Nanda, Advocate (In ABA No. 2818 of 2022) Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, Advocate (In ABA No. 3743/22) Ms. Ritu Kumar, Advocate (In ABA No. 4005 of 2022) Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate (In ABA No. 4202 of 2022) Mr. S.S. Choudhary, Advocate (In ABA No. 4421 of 2022) For the CBI : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Sr. Special P.P. ------ Order No.18 Dated : 19.04.2023 1. The anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioners, named above, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with R.C. Case No. 4(A)/2013-R for the offence registered under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 468, 171 of the Indian Penal Code read with 2 Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act pending in the Court of learned A.J.C.-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi, is pressed into motion. 2. The main allegation against this petitioner along with other 64 accused persons, who were recruited by the same selection process, is that there had been large scale manipulation in marks of the selected candidates. In order to facilitate this manipulation, answer sheets were not given code numbers. The recruitment examination was conducted in complete violation of JPSC Procedure. The merit list was not scrutinized by the Committee of 03 members to be nominated by Chairman and the detailed merit list was not even on JPSC record before publishing the final result. The entire process of both examinations was held in pursuance to the Advertisement Nos. 01/06 JET & 01/07 JET. Although advertisement clearly stated that the answer sheets of the candidates who qualified in paper 1 and 2 would be evaluated, but without obtaining minimum qualifying marks in paper 1 and 2, the answer sheets in 3rd paper was evaluated. The Evaluators were chosen as per discretion and no letter was issued by the JPSC for the said evaluation of the answer books. During course of enquiry, it also came that OMR answer sheet was also not available. 3. Heard learned counsel on behalf of petitioner- Rajendra Kumar Baraik in A.B.A. No. 4005 of 2022. The petitioner is Lecturer in Political Science and was appointed in the year 2008 on the basis of recruitment process conducted by the JPSC. Specific allegation against petitioner-Rajendra Kumar Baraik is that he received only 119 marks in the 3rd paper of JET examination whereas the minimum mark required was 120 despite this he was declared to be selected. It is submitted that the investigation discloses irregularities committed by the JPSC in the selection process but there is nothing to suggest as to how this petitioner was complicit in those acts committed by JPSC. They have been appointed and have been serving in their colleges and after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted. It is submitted that five of the similarly situated co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by the order of Hon’ble Supreme 3 Court passed in SLP (Crl) No.1467/2020, SLP (Crl) No.1787/2020, SLP (Crl) No.3021/2020, SLP (Crl) No.9086/2020 and SLP (Crl) No.2233/2020. 4. Heard learned counsel on behalf of petitioner- Sanjeev Kumar in A.B.A. No. 3743 of 2022. As per the prosecution case he obtained 56 marks in the first paper and 40 marks in the second paper. The total of the two papers is 96 whereas minimum qualifying mark was 100. It is submitted that he was serving as Lecturer in Sido Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka and was appointed by the selection process conducted by the JPSC in the year 2008. He was Ph.D. holder and therefore, was not appointed on the basis of his JET score, but on account of Ph.D degree. However, he had passed JET examination in 2006. 5. Heard learned counsel on behalf of petitioner- Binod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar in A.B.A. No. 4421 of 2022. As per the prosecution, petitioner- Binod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar received only 134 marks in the 3rd paper of JET examination whereas the minimum mark required was 135. It is submitted that he is serving as Lecturer in Jamshedpur and was appointed by the recruitment process conducted by the JPSC in the year 2008. There is no material to show that this petitioner was in any way involved in the manipulation of marks. 6. Heard learned counsel on behalf of petitioner-Ashok Kumar Singh, in A.B.A. No. 4202 of 2022, who was working as Lecturer in English language in Bokaro College. Petitioner-Ashok Kumar Singh was declared selected on the basis of 37 marks for his career and 38 marks for interview i.e. total 75 mark. However, CFSL deciphered that this petitioner was initially given 31 marks I the assessment chart which was later on manipulated and increased to 38. The assessment chart has signature of the Chairman of the Board. This petitioner scored 37 marks out of 60 on the basis of his career. As such this petitioner deserves only 73.25 mark whereas the minimum mark required was 75. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this petitioner will not be guilty of even being beneficiary of alleged manipulation in the marks by which it is stated that 31 marks in the 4 assessment chart was manipulated and increased to 38 by which he got 75 marks in place of 73.25 marks. He was appointed in the year 2014 on