Sachit Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand

Sachit Kumar Singh & Ors. Etc. Etc. ...Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Etc. Etc. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

impugned common judgment and order

passed by the Division Bench of the High

Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in respective Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Letters Patent Appeals, by which, the Division Neetu Sachdeva Date: 2023.04.28 16:27:29 IST Reason: Page 1 of 18 Bench of the High Court has dismissed the

said appeals and has not interfered with the

common judgment and order passed by the

learned Single Judge dismissing the writ

petitions, the original writ petitioners –

candidates who applied for the post of Sub

Inspector of Police have preferred the present

appeals.

2. That the respondents – Jharkhand Staff

Selection Commission (Commission) invited

applications for appointment to the post of

Sub Inspector of Police through limited

competitive examination from the eligible

candidates vide advertisement No. 09/2017.

That based on the requisition sent by the

parent department, 1544 posts were

advertised, against which 3350 applications

Page 2 of 18 were received by the Commission. Total 3219

candidates appeared in the examination

including the appellants herein. It was

mandatory for the candidates to obtain a

minimum of 45% of marks in both the papers

(Paper-2 and Paper-3) and a total of 50%

marks for qualification in the written

examination. Five percent relaxation was

allowed to the SC/ST candidates in the

minimum qualification marks. The

examination was based on OMR basis. That

out of total 3219 candidates appeared in the

examination only 663 candidates were able to

obtain the minimum qualification marks in

the written examination. Rest including the

original writ petitioners – appellants herein

were found ineligible having failed to obtain

the minimum qualifying marks. 399

Page 3 of 18 candidates were declared successful,

however, thereafter, on the basis of physical

and medical examination, only 396

candidates were found eligible for

recommendation and came to be appointed.

2.1 The original writ petitioners who were short of

one or two marks in getting the minimum

qualifying marks made representations dated

01.12.2017, 06.01.2018 and 08.01.2018 and

raised the objections against key answers.

According to them, key answers with respect

to nine questions were wrong and/or

incorrect. That thereafter, the respective

original writ petitioners filed the writ petitions

before the High Court for appropriate reliefs

or directing to strike down the questions

which were out of the syllabus and/or of

Page 4 of 18 which the key answers were incorrect. They

prayed for obtaining the expert’s opinion. The

writ petitions were opposed, inter-alia, on the

ground that they have not raised any

objection within the stipulated time as

informed by the Commission i.e., from

01.12.2017 to 08.12.2017. It was pointed

that even accepting that all the answers of

those questions have wrongly been printed

but the same is wrong for all in general,

therefore, no prejudice has been caused to

the original writ petitioners/appellants. The

learned Single Judge dismissed the writ

petitions.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

common judgment and order passed by the

learned Single Judge dismissing the writ

Page 5 of 18 petitions, the appellants herein preferred the

present letters patent appeals before the

Division Bench of the High Court. By the

impugned common judgment and order, the

Division Bench of the High Court has

dismissed the appeals, mainly, on the ground

that no objections were raised between the

period from 01.12.2017 to 08.12.2017 within

which the candidates were required to submit

their objections, if any, and therefore, their

prayer for obtaining the expert’s opinion

and/or for re-evaluation is not required to be

granted. The Division Bench of the High

Court also observed that even if, there is

some discrepancy in the answers such

discrepancy is for all the candidates and

therefore, no prejudice will be said to be

caused to the original writ petitioners. The

Page 6 of 18 Division Bench of the High Court also

observed that even if the marks would be

added of such questions in favour of the writ

petitioners/appellants, the same would also

be awarded to other candidates and in that

view of the matter, there will be no change in

the merit position as existing on the date as

they were all short of one or two marks from

the last selected candidate and if one or two

marks would be awarded to them the same

would be awarded to the successful

candidates as well, therefore, the fact remains

the same with respect to the position of the

appellants in comparison to the successful

candidates.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

impugned common judgment and order

Page 7 of 18 passed by the High Court dismissing the

letters patent appeals, the original writ

petitioners have preferred the present

appeals.

3. Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned

Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of

the appellants – original writ petitioners and

Shri Anil K. Jha, learned counsel has

appeared on behalf of the Jharkhand Staff

Selection Commission and Shri Jayant

Mohan, learned counsel has appeared on

behalf of the State.

4. Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned

Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the

original writ petitioners - appellants has

submitted that as such the first

representation was made by the original writ

Page 8 of 18 petitioners on 01.12.2017 which was within

the time limit for submitting the objections. It

is submitted that therefore, the High Court

has materially erred in non-suiting the

original writ petitioners on the ground that

the objections were not raised within the

stipulated time for raising the objections.

4.1 It is further submitted that even the High

Court has also materially erred in observing

that even if the marks would be added of

such questions, it will be added to all the

candidates and therefore, no prejudice shall

be caused to the original writ petitioners. It is

submitted that in fact, the respective original

writ petitioners were not found eligible solely

on the ground that they failed to obtain

minimum qualifying marks. It is submitted

Page 9 of 18 that as such the respective original writ

petitioners were short of one or two marks

only in achieving the minimum qualifying

marks. It is submitted that therefore, if the

marks would have been added of such

questions of which the answers were found

incorrect, the original writ petitioners would

be achieving the minimum qualifying marks

and therefore, their cases would have been

considered. It is submitted that therefore, the

High Court has materially erred in observing

that no prejudice shall be caused to the

appellants even if the marks would have been

added of such questions.

4.2 It is further submitted by learned Senior

Advocate appearing on behalf of the

appellants that out of 1544 posts advertised

Page 10 of 18 only 396 appointments were made and the

remaining posts had remained vacant.

5. While opposing the present appeals, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the

Commission as well as the State have

vehemently submitted that as original writ

petitioners failed to achieve the minimum

qualifying marks and therefore, they were

found to be ineligible. It is submitted that as

such the original writ petitioners submitted

the objections after the prescribed period to

raise the objections and therefore, the High

Court has rightly non-suited the original writ

petitioners.

5.1 It is further submitted that as rightly

observed by the High Court that even if there

was some discrepancy in the answers with

Page 11 of 18 respect to certain questions, the same was

with respect to all the candidates and

therefore, even if, the marks are added with

respect to such questions, no prejudice shall

be caused to the original writ petitioners as

similar marks will have to be added in case of

other selected candidates.

5.2 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to

dismiss the present appeals.

6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that

the original writ petitioners applied for the

post of Sub Inspector of Police. Their cases

were not considered for further appointment

as they were found ineligible, having failed to

achieve the minimum qualifying marks. They

submitted their objections with respect to

nine questions and according to the original

Page 12 of 18 writ petitioners, answers with respect to nine

questions were incorrect. The Division Bench

of the High Court has refused to consider the

objections on merits, mainly, on the ground

that objections were raised beyond the

prescribed period of submitting the

objections. The High Court has noted that the

objections were filed on 06.01.2018 and

08.01.2018. However, it is the case on behalf

of the original writ petitioners that the first

objection was submitted on 01.12.2017 the

copy of which is placed on record (page 235 of

SLP paper books). Therefore, the High Court

ought to have considered the objections on

merits and ought to have considered

obtaining the expert’s opinion. The High

Court has as such taken too technical view

and has erred in refusing to consider the

Page 13 of 18 objections on merits. At this stage, it is

required to be noted that even if, the

objections were raised on 06.01.2018 and

08.01.2018, the same were prior to the date

of the declaration of result i.e., on

09.01.2018. Therefore, the High Court ought

to have considered the objections on merits

and/or called for the expert’s opinion on nine

questions of which as per the original writ

petitioners, answers were incorrect. If the

expert’s opinion would have been taken on

the correct answers and/or on the answers

with respect to such nine questions for which

the objections were raised, the truth would

have come out.

7. Even, the High Court has materially erred in

observing that no prejudice shall be caused to

Page 14 of 18 the original writ petitioners even if the marks

would have been added with respect to such

questions as the marks would be added in

case of other successful candidates also.

However, it is required to be noted that as the

original writ petitioners failed to achieve the

minimum qualifying marks by one or two

marks only, therefore, if some marks would

have been added they would be achieving the

minimum qualifying marks and therefore,

they would have been eligible and their cases

would have been considered on merits.

Therefore, the High Court is not right in

observing that no prejudice shall be caused to

the original writ petitioners.

8. As the High Court has refused to consider the

objections on merits on the ground that the

Page 15 of 18 objections were not raised within the

stipulated period prescribed for submitting

the objections and thereby, has refused to get

the expert’s opinion, the matter is to be

remanded to the Division Bench of the High

Court for fresh consideration of the appeals

on merits with the observation that it will be

open for the Division Bench to call for the

expert’s opinion on the questions of which

their answers were alleged to be incorrect for

which the objections were raised so that if

ultimately it is found that the answers with

respect to some questions were incorrect and

consequently, the marks are added and they

may become eligible.

9. In view of the above and for the reasons

stated above, present appeals are allowed in

Page 16 of 18 part. The impugned common judgment and

order passed by the High Court dismissing

the Letters Patent Appeals is hereby quashed

and set aside. Matters are remitted back to

the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh

decision of Letters Patent Appeals in

accordance with law and on its own merits

and in light of the observations made

hereinabove. The Letters Patent Appeals on

remand be decided and disposed of at the

earliest preferably within a period of three

months from the date of the present order. As

observed hereinabove, it will be open for the

Division Bench of the High Court to call for

the expert’s opinion with respect to the

questions of which the answers were alleged

to be incorrect for which the objections were

raised. However, the same is left to the High

Page 17 of 18 Court. Present appeals are accordingly

allowed in terms of the present order. No

costs.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. APRIL 28, 2023 [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]

Page 18 of 18