Dinesh, Son of Late Ramgya Singh vs The Bihar Public Service Commission

Seeking review of an order dated 27.03.2017 passed by

this Court in LPA No. 1678 of 2013 this application has been filed.

The writ petition and the appeal were filed challenging

evaluation of answer book of the petitioner in the 1 st Regional Service

Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission

(BPSC in short) more than 14 years back between 8th April, 2002 and

20th April, 2002 and the result declared by issuing mark-sheet to the

petitioner on 30th April, 2004. The petitioner had contended that

proper marks have not been awarded to the petitioner.

While dealing with the matter in appeal, we found that the

petitioner had not pleaded or brought on record in the writ petition

specific grounds, evidence or material prima facie to indicate as to

what are the questions answered by the petitioner and what is the

wrong evaluation done. We had indicated that there is no foundation

for the submission made. Now the petitioner relies upon the answer

sheets and other material received by the petitioner under the Right to

Information Act and is trying to demonstrate that the answer sheets

were not properly evaluated. However, these materials were not

available when the writ petition was decided and when the LPA was

heard by us on 27.03.2017. On petitioner''s own showing, these

documents have been obtained by him much after the proceedings in

the writ petition and the LPA were concluded. In fact, we had

observed that the petitioner had not produced enough material to

substantiate the contention. The petitioner is now trying to bring the

material and substantiate the contention. On such consideration

review of the order is not permissible. In case law permits, the

petitioner may point out the infirmities or illegalities to the Board

which conducted the examination and it would be proper for the

Board to take action in accordance with law. However, in this review

petition based on this contention we are not inclined to re-open the

issue and find no ground to make any indulgence with regard to an

examination said to have been conducted way back in the year 2002.

We see no ground to review the order dated 27.03.2017

passed in LPA No. 1678 of 2013. The review application is therefore

dismissed.