Namita Raje v. The State of Jharkhand

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioners: For the State: For the JPSC: --------- Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Mr. Shailesh Poddar, Advocate Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. S.C.-II Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, S.C.-V Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-I Mr. Krishna Prajapati, A.C. to S.C.-V Mrs. Nirupma, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-II Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate --------- Reserved on: 08.04.2025 Pronounced on: 25/04/2025 Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

1. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the revised answer keys notified by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (for short ‘JPSC’) through a Press Release dt. 13.05.2024 in regard to certain questions in the examination conducted by it for appointment of Civil Judges (Junior Division) through an Advertisement No.22/2023 dt.

14.08.2023 under the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Regulations, 2013.

2. The questions with regard to which there is challenge in these cases are questions in the preliminary entrance test (multiple choice/objective type).

3. All the petitioners in this batch of cases have appeared in the said examination.

4. We shall deal with the facts in W.P. (S) No. 4667 of 2024 by way of illustration.

5. We may point out that the counsel for the petitioners in this case has confined the prayer in the writ petitions to the answers to Question Nos.8, 74 and 96 of Series Booklet A only. These very questions had been given other numbers in Series B, C and D also.

6. Question No.8 reads as under:- “8. Choose the correct sentence from the following. (A) More than one boy was absent from the class. (B) More than one boy were absent from the class. (C) More than one boy absent from the class. (D) More than two boys was absent from the class.”

7. Petitioners contend that they had chosen answer against the said question as Option (A), but the respondents-JPSC has published the revised answer-keys and Option (B) has been made a correct option therein wrongly.

8. Question No.74 reads as under: “74. In an Order in the Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India (W.P. (Civil) No.943/2021) Case, the Supreme Court directed, inter alia, that States and Union Territories “shall ensure immediately, as and when any speech of any action takes place which attracts offences such as Section ________ of Indian Penal Code etc., without any complaint being filed, suo motu action be taken to register cases and proceed against the offenders in accordance with law”. The provisions of IPC stated by Supreme Court included (A) Section 153 A and 153B (B) Section 295 A (C) Section 506 (D) All the above Sections.”

9. According to the petitioners, the JPSC has shown Option (D) as the correct answer, i.e., “All of the above Sections.”, i.e., Sections 153 A and 153B, Section 295 A, and Section 506, but, a perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Union of India [W.P. (Civil) No. 943/2021], which is referred to in the said question, indicates that in the said judgment Section 506 is not mentioned and Section 505 is mentioned. Therefore, petitioners contend that Option (D) given by the JPSC is incorrect.

10. The third question, which is under challenge, is Question No.96, which reads as under: “96. Which of the following is incorrect about agency under the Indian Contract Act? (A) An agent may be employed to do any act for the principal. (B) Only such person may be employed as agent who has obtained the age of majority. (C) The authority of agent must be expressed in writing. (D) No consideration is necessary to create an agency.

11. According to the petitioners, the candidates appearing for the exam were asked to choose which of the statements was incorrect about the law of agency under the Indian Contract Act mentioned in the said question. According to them, initially the JPSC indicated Option (C) to be the correct answer, but, later, revised it to Option (A). According to the petitioners, under Section 182 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an agent can be employed to do any act for the principal and, therefore, Option (A) given by the JPSC is wrong. They also point out that Option (B), which states that “Only such person may be employed as agent who has obtained the age of majority” is incorrect, because, under Section 184 of the Indian Contract Act, a minor can also be an agent but he will not be responsible to his principal. They also contend that Option (C) given by the JPSC that “The authority of agent must be expressed in writing” is also incorrect, because under Section 186, agency can also be implied. They, therefore, contend that both options (B) and (C) would be the correct answers to Question No.96 and Option (A) given by the JPSC is wrong.

12. Counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Kanpur University & Ors v. Samir Gupta & Ors1 and Ran Vijay Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors2.

13. Counsel for the JPSC, on the other hand, vehemently contended that there is no provision in the Rules for re-evaluation, and so a direction cannot be issued to the JPSC by this Court even if the contention of the petitioners is accepted.

14. Reliance is placed by counsel for JPSC on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and another3, Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Anr v. State of Rajasthan and Ors4 and High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & Ors5. They also placed reliance on the judgments of Division Bench of this Court in Sonu