Dismissed

Ranjit Kumar Parmanik v. State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Deptt

Jharkhand HC11 Jul 2019WPC/625/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking direction to constitute an expert committee for re-evaluation of a Public Service Commission exam paper. The Court held that the petitioner had accepted the Division Bench order via a Letters Patent Appeal, which required existing evaluation, and no statute mandated forming a special committee.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed for direction to constitute an expert committee for re-evaluation was dismissed.

Ranjit Kumar Parmanik Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(C) No.625 of 2019

¶4

--------

¶5

Ranjit Kumar Pramanik, aged about 42 years, S/o Sonaram Pramanik, R/o Flat No.C/12, Civil Court Area, Camp II Court Camp, P.O. and P.S.- Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro (Jharkdhand).

¶6

…… Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand through Principle Secretary- Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, P.O and P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.

¶9

Jharkhand Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, having its office at Circular Road, P.O. & P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi.

¶10

Secretary, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having its office at Circular Road, P.O. and P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi.

¶11

Controller of Examinations, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, having its office at Circular Road, P.O. and P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi.

¶12

…… Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶15

------For the Petitioner : Mr. Venkateshwar Gopal, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Rupesh Singh, G.P.-V : Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, A.C. For the Respondent-JPSC : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate : Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate ----------------------------

¶16

07 / Dated 11^th July, 2019

¶17

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the petitioner has sought for a direction to command upon the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission to constitute a committee of three members who are expert in the concerned subject and related question and are of the status not less than university professor and get the question no.9 of Part-III (law) re-evaluated by the same committee.

¶18

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to the advertisement published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) bearing No.4/2013 invited application for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination schedule to be held in the year 2014, after scrutiny of the application form he has found eligible to participate in the process of selection and accordingly he has participated in the written examination. After conclusion of the written examination result was published in which the petitioner was declared unsuccessful having obtained total marks of 190 out

¶19

¶20

of 400, and further obtained 44 marks in viva-voce, thus total marks obtained was 234 out of 500 but he having doubt upon the marks obtained in Paper III (Law), therefore, he has applied for inspection of the evaluated answer sheets of the subjects under the provision of Right to Information Act, by making an application to that effect on 25.02.2015, in pursuance to the same the petitioner was provided with an opportunity to inspect the answersheet and upon inspection it transpires that he had attempted question No.1 of Section A, 3 (b) and 4 (b) of Section B, 6 of Section C, 7 of Section D and 9 of Section E.

¶21

3. The petitioner also came to know in course of the said inspection that although all sections were evaluated but Section E of Paper No. III was not evaluated and a remark ‘extra’ was inserted against the answer to Question No.9 of Section E. The petitioner being a candidate belongs to BC-I Category and wherein the last selected candidate has got 239 marks out of 500, but according to the petitioner that if the Question No.9 of Section E would have been evaluated property, there was every likelihood of the petitioner to come under the zone of selected candidate since the petitioner has got 234 marks out of 500 and in such circumstance he has approached to this Court by filling the writ petition being W.P.(C). No.1695 of 2015 which was dismissed vide order dated 24.04.2015 which led the petitioner to question the order passed by this Court under the writ jurisdiction by filing the letters patent appeal being L.P.A. No.251/15 in which Hon’ble Division of Bench of this Court has passed an order to evaluate the answer of Question No.9 and strike out to answer to question No.4 (b) and direction has been passed upon the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to recalculate the marks of the appellant, after evaluate the Question No.9 and leave out the answer of Question No.4(b) and publish the result of the petitioner/appellant, if the petitioner would have got equal to or more than the cut off marks, obtained by the last selected candidate in his category, the appellant will also be accommodated against the vacancy, if exists.

¶22

The Jharkhand Public Service Commission has acted in pursuance to the aforesaid direction by evaluating the Paper III and on re-evaluating, the petitioner has got further three marks as

¶23

¶24

would appear from Annexure-7 and thereafter the statement of marks has been issued whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been informed that he got 237 marks out of 500 by enhancing the marks of Law Paper III.

¶25

The petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is that the said evaluation has not properly been done, therefore, the same is directed to be done by the expert three members committee since the petitioner is brilliant student and has secured 60 marks in other subject.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S). No.1895/12, but the same has been decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.77 or 2013.

¶27

4. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, has submitted that the order passed by the Hon’ble Division of this Court in L.P.A. No.251 of 2015 has been implemented by evaluating the question No.9 of Law Paper III thereafter the marks has also been published wherein the petitioner has got 234 marks out 500 and since the last selected candidate under BC-I category has got 239 out of 500, therefore, the petitioner’s name could not have been incorporated in the list of selected candidate under BC-I Category.

¶28

His further submission is that the direction which is being sought for by petitioner cannot be issued since there is no provision either to constitute a Committee of three members who are expert and further reason that since the Division Bench of this Court already passed the order and if the petitioner would have got any grievance then he would have agitated the same by not accepting the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court he cannot come and prayed for subsequent prayer, therefore, the writ petition is deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions it is evident that the petitioner has approached to this Court in the writ petition by filing a writ petition but the same having been dismissed and the petitioner filed letters patent appeal wherein while allowing the appeal and following the direction which was passed which reads

¶30

¶31

hereunder as:-

¶32

“………. 17. We, thus, direct the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to evaluate the answer to Question No.9 and strike out the answer to Question No. 4(b). We further direct the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to recalculate the marks of the appellant, after evaluating Question No.9 and leave out the answer of Question No. 4(b) and publish the result of the appellant. If the marks of the appellant is equal to or more than the cut off marks, obtained by the last selected candidate in his category, the appellant will also be accommodated against the vacancy, if exists, for the post, to which, the appellant has applied for. It is also made clear that the entire exercise shall be completed within the period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 18. We also find that there was no delay in filing this writ petition as the writ-petitioner perused the answersheet only on 25.03.2015 and he filed the writ petition on 22.04.2015, which is less than a month. This delay cannot be said to be fatal for the petitioner. ……………”

¶33

In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission has exercised the power by evaluating the question No.9 of Law Paper-III and after conclusion of the reevaluation, three marks has been added in Law Paper-III as would be evident from the communication issued by the Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi vide letter issued in this regard on 23.05.2017, in consequence thereof, the statement of marks has been published as has been annexed as annexure-3 at Page No.34 to the writ petition, by the Senior Judge (Junior Division) Recruitment Exam Advt. as the original marks, the petitioner had obtained 44 marks out of 100 marks as reflected from Annexure-3 and after adding three marks on re-evaluating, it becomes 47 marks out 100 but in the result the total marks secured by the petitioner is 237 enhanced from 234 thereon in addition.

¶34

It is not in dispute that since it has been admitted by the petitioner in this writ petition that the last selected candidate has obtained 239 marks out of 500 under BC-I Category, therefore, since the petitioner has doubt for 237 marks which is less than two number from the last selected candidate hence his name could not have been incorporated out of last successful under the said category and accordingly, he has been declared to be unsuccessful.

¶35

¶36

In this background of this case, petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking relief for constituting a three members committee for evaluation of the paper but the question herein is that once the petitioner has accepted the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court thereafter, whether the petitioner can be allowed to come out with different prayer.

¶37

The answer of this Court would be in negative it is for the reason that if any judgment is being passed by any court of law the same binds the parties and once the petitioner has accepted by not assailing the order before the higher forum the said order binds the party.

¶38

Further also on the ground that the question of constituting the expert committee is not provided under any statute warranting any direction from this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India however, this Court in the ends of justice has already passed an order in L.P.A. No.251 of 2015.

¶39

In view of the aforesaid reason, this Court is of the view that since the petitioner could not have been declared successful candidate being not got the marks as that the last selected candidate under BC-I category, therefore, if such direction would be passed as prayed, the same would amount to exceed jurisdiction by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as also sitting upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in L.P.A. No.251 of 2015.

¶40

In view thereof, in the facts and circumstances of this case in its entirety this Court is of the view that the relief sought for by this Court is not such a nature warranting any positive direction in favour of the petitioner by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶41

This writ petition is accordingly, fails and, dismissed.

¶42

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶43

Madhav

Ranjit Kumar Parmanik v. State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjit Kumar Parmanik v. State of Jharkhand through Principal Secretary Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md Najmul Hasan And Anr. Vs Human Resources Department

Tara Devi Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Subhagya Chandra Das Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Madhu Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Asir Khan And Anr. Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Manorma Devi Vs Registrar Co. Operative Societies