The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A.No. 595 of 2012 Dr. Shanti Devi. ... -Versus- ... State of Jharkhand through Vigilance. ... ... ... ... ...Petitioner ...Opp. Party CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
material available before me, prima facie, connivance of all the members led by the Chairman in the selection process of the engineers is apparent. In a case where the interest of public at large is involved merely because the accused has remained in custody for a certain period shall not be considered as a ground for his/her release on bail. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not feel inclined to consider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail made on her behalf stands dismissed. P.K.S./N.A.F.R. [D.N.Upadhyay,J.]
Arguments
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.UPADHYAY ---------- For the Petitioner: For the Vigilance: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate. ---------- 09/ 20.03.2013 The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 467/468/471/474/477-A/120B/409/109/34/201 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 11/2011, corresponding to Special Case No. 13 of 2011( now R.C. Case No.10 (A)/2012-R), pending in the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi. 2. The present case has been lodged after gross illegalities, irregularities and bunglings surfaced in the appointment process of Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers for the Water Resources Department, Ranchi adopted by Jharkhand Public Service Commission. 3. The gist of allegation is that there was overwriting in the marks obtained by the candidate. No suitable number of candidates as per Rule of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission were called for the interview for the post of 145 Engineers. The cut-off mark for different categories of the candidate has been decidied arbitrarily without following the norms and procedure by the Commission. There was leak of question paper prior to the examination conducted and for that the then Secretary Smt. Alice Usha Rani Singh had requested the Commission to cancel the examination but related documents were concealed by the Commission. The signature of members and experts were missing on some of the sheets by which the candidates were recommended for their appointment. During investigation I.O. of the Vigilance Department has not co-operated with and the Commission has tried to conceal or destroy relevant documents to save the culprits. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner has not signed the assessment chart and she was not the member in the Interview Board. As a matter of fact, the number of candidates who had obtained qualifying marks as per their category were not sufficient and therefore 198 candidates who obtained qualifying marks were called for their interview. There was no irregularities when the Commission has decided the cut-off marks to call for candidates for their interview. Even after reducing the cut-off mark the required number of candidates was not available. So far as leak of question paper is concerned out of 100 questions only 3 questions were tallying and therefore, it will not be presumed that it was a matter of leak of question paper by the Board. If some of the expert or member of the Interview Board inadvertently left to sign, it cannot be said that favour was given to the candidates or unfair means were adopted rather it was an irregularity which could be rectified. Last but not least the petitioner has remained in custody for about 21 months. Learned Counsel has referred Chapter- III Sub-Rule (viii) of Rule IV and Sub-rule XII (d) of Rule IV in order to show that the major decision 2. was being taken by the Chairman and two senior members of the Commission. Since the petitioner was junior most member in the Commission, she had not participated in those processes and she was not part of the decision making policy. 5. On the other hand, Counsel for the C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner cannot escape from her liability and responsibility because she was the part of the Commission and she had discharged obligation in the selection process of Engineers. In this context, he has referred Rule IV which deals with basic function of the Commission. He has also pointed out page 27 & 40 of the F.I.R. which indicates the overwriting done in the assessment chart and decision taken by the Commission duly participated by present petitioner. 6. I have gone through the F.I.R., impugned order and the related documents as well as Jharkhand Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure 2002. The Commission is a constitutional body and the people of the Jharkhand expect fairness and transparency in any appointment process conducted by Jharkhand Public Service Commission. The common people of the Jharkhand and the deserving candidates have totally lost their faith in the functioning of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission because each and every selection process conducted by Jharkhand Public Service Commission appears tainted and favouritism has been given to the candidate is beyond imagination. By keeping all the norms and procedure away, only on the basis of favour and mal-practice selection process have been done. 7. From perusal of the cases it appears that the Chairman and the members of J.P.S.C. did not have shown morale to disclose about their relatives, kith and kin appearing for the post advertised by the J.P.S.C. Instead of keeping themselves away from the selection process, they had gone to the extent of giving them favour for their appointment. Now coming to the facts of this case, overwriting in the assessment chart is apparent, the cut-off mark has been decided without following norms and procedure. The basic requirement to show the fairness in the selection process have not been complied with and the entire selection process adopted in this case is highly tainted and the petitioner cannot escape only by saying that she did not sign certain papers and therefore, she shall not be held liable for the offence alleged. I did not find any document which would show the bona fide of the present petitioner that she ever took any step at any stage of selection process to make it fair and transparent. From the