The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6138 of 2018 Deepak Lal Pandey Versus ..… Petitioner 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 2.The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission its Secretary, Kalinagar, Chaibagan, P.O. & P.S.-Namkom, District-Ranchi. 3.The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Chaibagan, Kalinagar, P.O. & P.S.-Namkum, District-Ranchi. Respondents .... --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner For the Resp.-JSSC : Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, Advocate : Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate 09/ 22.03.2024 --------- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to verify and correct the final answer key of question booklet Code 13A of paper 2 (Sanskrit) in the light of incorrect answers published in answer key for question no.1,25,46,55,126,130. b) Upon making the aforesaid correction publish a revised answer key to the aforesaid paper and re-evaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner as per the revised answer key. c) Commanding upon the respondents to re- determine the merit of candidates on the basis of corrected answer key and prepare fresh list of shortlisted candidates in Sanskrit subject. d) Further commanding upon the respondents to publish cut-off marks of the last selected candidates/shortlisted candidates in Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Examination 2016 (main) in the category petitioner in Sanskrit subject, and if petitioner gets equal or more marks on the basis of revised result than last shortlisted candidate included in that list in category of petitioner then also to consider the petitioner for selection. e) Petitioner further prays for direction upon the concerned respondents to keep the appointment of the candidates included in 2 the list of shortlisted candidates in abeyance till finalization and publication the of revised select list after considering the claim of petitioner. 3.
Facts
The brief facts as disclosed in the instant application are that the petitioner had passed Μ.Α. Sanskrit (Sahitya) Examination and also B.Ed. Examination and further qualified Central Teacher Eligibility Test. An advertisement bearing No. 21/2016 was published by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC in short), for appointment of Graduate Trained Teachers in Government Secondary Schools. As per Advertisement, minimum Educational Qualification for candidates would be Bachelor’s Degree with 45% marks in respective subjects and B.Ed. from a recognized University. As per the scheme of examination, single stage examination was to be held consisting of two papers having objective type questions of multiple choices. Paper 1 was of General Knowledge and Hindi language of 200 marks, consisting of 200 questions, and paper 2 was optional paper for 300 marks consisting 150 questions of 2 marks each. Further, Paper 1 was qualifying in nature in which 33% marks was necessary to be obtained; whereas in paper 2 minimum 50% marks were essential for general and O.B.C. category and for S.T./S.C. candidates 45% marks were necessary to be obtained. The Petitioner applied for the post of Graduate Trained Teacher in Sanskrit Subject against unreserved category where 56 posts of Sanskrit Teachers were shown vacant for other candidates and 19 posts for primary teachers. Admit card was issued to the petitioner for appearing on 19.11.2017 and 3 25.11.2017 for paper 1 and paper 2 respectively and thereafter the petitioner appeared in examination on stipulated dates. Thereafter answer key was published on the website of the commission and petitioner finding some wrong answers in answer key filed his objection within the stipulated time. Thereafter, revised answer key was published on website of the commission in which petitioner found that answer to question no. 1, 25, 46, 55, 126 & 130 of booklet 13A are still wrong. List of shortlisted candidates of Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Exam (Mains) has also been published for Garhwa District. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was an eligible candidate and was having hope to be selected in Jharkhand Combined Graduate Trained Teachers Examination 2016 was not placed in the list of candidates shortlisted against vacancy and obviously due to reason that several answers published in final answer key were wrong and due to that reason petitioner’s answers of those questions which were correct have been declared wrong. He further submits that the publication of list of shortlisted candidates on the basis of wrong answer published by commission in answer key is highly erroneous and illegal. He further submits that the petitioner has fair chance of his selection in combined graduate teacher exam conducted by JSSC if the re-evaluation of his answer sheet is done on the basis of corrected answer key. He lastly submits that the selection of candidates on the basis of wrong answer key and debarring the petitioner in spite 4 of giving correct answer in exam is against the principles of natural justice. 5.
Legal Reasoning
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3931 of 2019 with analogues cases; wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held at para 9 as under:- “9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon going through record, we find that these matters are fully covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh’s case (supra), and we find that this Court has little scope to enter into the question raised by the writ applicants, particularly in view of the fact the Expert Committee has come out with key answers after considering the objections. Simply because of the fact that the examination relates to the subject of law, that does not mean that this Court should sit over the expert opinion of the experts in the subject. Since the Expert Committee has finalized the key answers, there is a presumption attached to it about its correctness, and in that view of the matter, it shall not be proper for the Court to sit over the opinion of the Expert Committee. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these writ applications and the same are accordingly, dismissed. The pending Interlocutory Applications also stand dismissed.” It is not out of place to mention here that now after so many years when the entire process of appointment is completed and final result has already been published in the year 2018 itself; no relief can be granted to this petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion the instant writ application stands dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/
Arguments
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that J.S.S.C after receipt of objections/suggestions from the candidates placed the same before a committee of experts for verification/correction of the Model Answers in the light of objections/suggestion of the candidates. He further submits that after receiving the objections from the candidates, the same were placed before the expert committee and on the basis of correction/ opinion of the experts committee about the Model Answer key, J.S.S.C published the corrected Model answers for information to the candidates. He further submits that it is evident from the perusal of Annexure-B that the Model Answers were corrected as per the opinion of Experts Committee. He further submits that certain objections were again raised by some of the candidates on final answer key of subject Sanskrit, Hindi, Physical Education and Economics etc. The objections on final answer key were again sent to the subject experts of relevant subjects and on the basis of opinion of the expert committee, J.S.S.C published the revised/amended final answer key for subject Sanskrit, Hindi and Economics and same were also placed on the website of the commission for information to the candidates. He further submits that from perusal of Annexure-C it is evident that certain questions were cancelled in the concerned booklet series. He further submits that after publication of the amended/revised model answer, the OMR Sheets of the candidates were evaluated and thereafter J.S.S.C. published the 5 result of the shortlisted candidates for verification of their documents in which petitioner was not shortlisted. He lastly submits that after publication of the result of the shortlisted candidates, the candidates were also called for verification of their testimonials and after verification of the testimonials of the candidates; the final result was published in year 2018. As such, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the relevant affidavits and the averments made therein, it appears that the J.S.S.C after conducting the examination, published the model answers for objections/suggestions by the candidates and after publication of the model answers, the candidates have also submitted their objections/suggestions before the J.S.S.C. and J.S.S.C placed the aforesaid suggestions/objections before the experts committee for verification and correction and on the basis of the advice and correction made by the experts committee on the model answers final revised model answers was published and as such there is no illegality in publication of the final revised model answer key and fair chance was given to candidates for raising their objections/suggestions and thereafter on the basis of experts opinion amended/revised answer key was published and as such prayer as made by the petitioner At this stage it is necessary to indicate that opinion/suggestions of the expert/experts committee are binding on the J.S.S.C. It further transpires that the petitioner had also filed the objection but petitioner has not enclosed his 6 objection/suggestion filed before the JSSC in terms of Annexure-A. 7. In the similar facts and circumstances and on the issue involved in the instant case reference may be made to the order