Santosh Kumar Soni vs Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belonging to reserve category of B.C. II, did appear in the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Preliminary Test conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to be as "Commission") and secured 51 marks. The person belonging to B.C.-II category securing 54 or more marks have been allowed to take Main Examination, but the petitioner was not declared as successful in the Preliminary Examination, as he obtained only 51 marks, though if the answers given by the petitioner for Question Nos. 30, 48, 53, 61 and 69 of the Booklet Series-A, would have been taken to be correct, he would have fetched 5 more marks and thereby, he would have been declared successful.

In this regard, it was submitted that all the questions above mentioned do have dual answers. In that event, if the answer given by the petitioner would have taken to be correct, then he would have fetched 5 more marks.

However, it was pointed out that so far question No. 53 is concerned, it may not have dual answer, but still the petitioner would have fetched four more marks and would have come out successful.

As against this, Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for Commission submits that after the examination, model answers of each of the questions was displayed over the Website of the Commission and invited objections from the concerned persons and that apart, notice to that effect was also published in the newspaper. After objections were received, those objections were referred to a Committee of Expert. They examined it, and then came out with a revised model answers and on that basis, evaluation of the answer sheets was made. Upon evaluation, the petitioner secured 51 marks and in that event submission of the petitioner that those five questions have dual answers cannot be accepted and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to have relief in his favour.

Learned counsel has referred to a decision rendered by the Patna High Court in a case of Ganesh Prasad Yadav and Others Vs. The State of Bihar and Others , which is not exactly on the issue which is involved in this case. However, it has been held that even if there are some mistakes in the answer on that ground examination cannot be cancelled as its advantages accrued to all the candidates successful and unsuccessful.

Thus, it appears that the petitioner, who has secured 51 marks is claiming four more marks for the answer given for Question Nos. 30, 48, 61 and 69 of the Booklet Series-A for the reason that they do carry two right answers and the petitioner has rightly answered the question, but according to the case of the Commission, those 5 questions do not have dual answer as per the opinion of the expert. However, according to the petitioner, one having knowledge of the subject would come to conclusion that those four questions do have two correct answers.

In that peculiar circumstances, the petitioner is given liberty to represent his case before the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi by tomorrow so that it be decided before 19th of July, 2014 by any competent person authorized by the Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi.

Thus, this application stands disposed of.