AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned Advocates for the respective parties are present.
The petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs:
“ i. For issuance of an order, direction or a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the result of examination published by the Bihar Public Service Commission against Advertisement No.22/2024 issued for appointment of Government School Teacher (6-8) SST Subject inasmuch the aforesaid result has been published by using an erroneous modal answer key prepared by the respondent commission.
ii.For issuance of an order, direction or a writ of mandamus for directing the respondent Commission to change the modal answer key in Set "J" to the following extent and thereafter revise the result using the correct answer key:
(a)The answer of Question No.G-20 should be changed from option C to option E.
(b)The answer of Question No.G-27 should be changed from option B to option E.
C) The answer of Question No.E-36 should be changed from option A to option D.
iii.For issuance of an order, direction or a writ of mandamus for directing the respondent Commission to accordingly revise the result and consider the petitioner for appointment against Advertisement No.22/2024 published on 07.02.2024.
iv.For issuance of an order direction or a writ of mandamus for directing the Respondent Commission to get the answer key evaluated by a fresh body of independent experts and thereafter publish a revised result on the basis of answer key suggested by them.
v.For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent authorities to re-evaluate the OMR sheet and re-publish the result of the Petitioner, who has missed the cut off, after assigning the correct options to Questions No. G-20, G-27 & E-36 of Question Booklet Series "J", of which examination was held on 19.07.2024 in respect of Advertisement No. 22/24 dated 07.02.2024 issued for selection of Government Primary School Teacher on the basis of materials produced by the Petitioner or by an independent/ fresh and competent panel of experts.
vi.For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent authorities to bring on record cogent materials/authorities in support of the final answer key published by it in respect of Questions No. G-20, G-27 & E-36 of Question Booklet Series "J", of which examination was held on 19.07.2024 in respect of Advertisement No. 22/24 dated 07.02.2024 as the answers assigned by the Respondent authorities in the final answer key is patently wrong and erroneous.
vii.For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent authorities to consider the case of the Petitioners for appointment as Government School Teacher(6-8), Government of Bihar on the basis of Petitioner's merit position consequent to such re-evaluation and re-publication of Petitioner's result in respect of Advertisement No. 22/2024 dated 07.02.2024.
viii.For an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent authorities to adequately compensate the Petitioner for violation of Petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. of India.
ix.For any other relief or reliefs to which the Petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
It is submitted that in terms with the Advertisement bearing No. 22 of 2024, the petitioner participated in the examination on 19.07.2024. Upon completion of the examination, the respondent Bihar Public Service Commission came out with a provisional answer key containing model answers to the questions asked in the Preliminary Examination. The first provisional answer key was published on 30.08.2024, and the objections to the provisional answer key were invited from the candidates from 02.09.2024 to 08.09.2024. The petitioner raised objection in an appropriate manner with regard to the questions as mentioned in the relief portion noted hereinabove.
Notwithstanding the objection raised by the petitioner, the respondent Commission considered only one objection with regard to question No. E-6 and the remaining objection raised by the petitioner remained unnoticed and the Commission has published final answer key on 22.09.2024 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. On account of non-consideration, the petitioner could not be selected, is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.
For redressal of the grievance, the petitioner has filed a detailed representation dated 28.11.2024, copy of which is placed on record as Annexure-P/7.
On the other hand, learned Advocates for the State and the Commission submit that objections of the petitioner were duly considered and on being found merit consideration in an objection, the same has been duly considered and accordingly the said objection has been accepted. However, no merit was found in respect to other objections. Accordingly, no change was required.
At this juncture, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that since the representation has already been filed with categorical objection, the same was at least required to be considered by the Commission.
This Court extend the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the Controller of Examination, Bihar Public Service Commission, preferably within a period of one week. In case such application is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed off, preferably within a period of three weeks thereafter.
The writ petition stands disposed.