1. Kumari Rukhmani Murmu 2. Simalia Kumari 3. Abhishek Kumar Ram v. …
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4882 of 2019 1. Kumari Rukhmani Murmu 2. Simalia Kumari 3. Abhishek Kumar Ram Versus ….. Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Under Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi 5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi ….. Respondents With W.P.(S) No. 4903 of 2019 1. Mamta Mahto 2. Swarupem Sharan 3. Birendra Kumar Das 4. Binod Rabidas 5. Mutuk Dhari Singh Versus ….. Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Under Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi 5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi ….. Respondents With W.P.(S) No. 5283 of 2019
Legal Reasoning
1. Srishti Tiwary 2. Sanjay Kumar 3. Priya Ranjan Kumar Paswan Versus ….. Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Under Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi 5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioners: Mr. Pravin Kr. Rana For the State: For the JSSC: Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, A.C to G.P-II Mr. Sanjay Piprawall ----- 2 05/06.02.2024 Since the issue raised in all these writ petitions is similar, the same are
Decision
being taken up together and disposed of by this common order with consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. All these writ petitions have been filed for quashing the result published by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) on 20.08.2019 pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2017 issued for appointment on the post of Panchayat Secretary (Intermediate level examination) as the petitioners qualified the preliminary test as well as the written (main) examination conducted by the respondent-JSSC and thereafter they were called for computer skill test, however, due to technical fault in the computers/systems, they could not qualify in the said test. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent-JSSC to conduct a fresh computer skill test, so far as the petitioners are concerned, providing proper computers/systems to them and if they qualify in the same, to appoint them on the said post. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners appeared in the preliminary test as well as in the written (main) examination conducted by the respondent-JSSC pursuant to the said advertisement and on being declared successful, they were called to appear in the computer skill test, which was to be conducted from 01.07.2019 to 08.07.2019. However, unfortunately while they appeared in the said test, the computers/systems provided to them did not properly function, due to which they could not finish the given assignments within the prescribed time as a result of which, they could not qualify in the said test. Had the petitioners been provided proper computers, they would have easily completed the given assignments. There was no fault on the part of the petitioners, rather due to unfortunate situation that occurred in the concerned centres (06 in number), they could not qualify the computer skill test. After the said 3 unfortunate situation, the petitioners also represented the respondent-JSSC in this regard, however, the same was not responded, which has compelled them to prefer the present writ petitions. 4. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-JSSC, while referring to the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the said respondent, submits that after conducting the written examination on the scheduled dates i.e. 21.01.2018. 28.01.2018 & 04.02.2018, the JSSC vide notice dated 23.02.2019, published the list of successful candidates asking them to appear in the computer skill test. The petitioners were also declared successful and hence they appeared in the computer skill test. All the candidates including the petitioners were provided due opportunity to undergo the said test and they were also instructed to register their respective complaints, if any. After appearing in the computer skill test, the petitioners registered their respective complaints before the respondent-JSSC raising the issue with regard to technical problems in the computers/systems provided to them, due to which they could not properly perform in the skill test. 5. It is further submitted that the nature of complaints lodged by all the petitioners have been duly explained in the counter affidavits filed in the respective writ petitions. After receipt of the complaints from the candidates including the petitioners, the same were forwarded to the concerned outsource agency which was authorized to conduct the skill test in the said examination. The outsource agency was also directed by the JSSC to go through the complaints and to take necessary remedial measures as well as to submit a detailed action taken report. The outsource agency thereafter submitted the action taken report with respect to the petitioners, the details of which have been mentioned in the counter affidavits filed in the respective writ petitions. 4 6. It is also submitted that as per the action taken report submitted by the outsource agency, the technical difficulties faced the petitioners were immediately attended and sorted out and thereafter they completed the said test. Under the said circumstance, the allegation made by the petitioners in the present writ petitions that they could not properly perform in the skill test due to technical problems occurred in the computers/systems, is not correct. 7. It is further submitted that in the computer proficiency test, out of 7457 candidates, 2093 candidates were absent and among 5364 candidates, who were present in the said test, 4915 candidates qualified. Similarly, in Hindi typing test, out of 7457 candidates, 2472 candidates were absent and among 4985 candidates, who were present, 1827 candidates qualified. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. As per the stand taken in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent-JSSC, it appears that on registering the respective complaints by the petitioners and other candidates, the same were properly responded by the respondent-JSSC. In the said process, the concerned outsource agency was directed to go through the respective complaints of the candidates and to take the remedial measures as well as to submit a detailed action taken report. The outsource agency thereafter submitted the action taken report with respect to the concerned candidates including the petitioners as has been mentioned in the counter affidavits filed in the respective writ petitions. On perusal of the said report, it appears that the technical problems which occurred while the petitioners were undergoing the computer skill test, were properly attended and rectified and thereafter they completed the same without further difficulty. Moreover, the respondent-JSSC has also stated in the counter affidavits that 5 the recommendation of successful candidates pursuant to the said advertisement has already been made in the month of May, 2023 itself. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have failed to make out any case for directing the respondent-JSSC to conduct a fresh computer skill test in terms with the said advertisement. 10. The present writ petitions being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed. Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)