Dismissed

Gurudas Hajra v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC24 Feb 2022WPC/2610/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the answer sheet and appointment list for the Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Exam-2016. The High Court dismissed the petition as the petitioner failed to annex foundational facts or objection letters, despite the matter having been disposed of earlier.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no fresh answer sheet issued; case of appointment not considered.

Gurudas Hajra Vs the State of Jharkhand — Education and Admissions | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 2610 of 2019

¶3

Gurudas Hajra aged about 31 years, S/O Panchkari Hajra, Resident of Village- Barnandanpur P.O.- Nandanpur, P.S.- Khanakul, DistrictHooghly, (West Bengal)

¶4

At Present Resident of Village- Adalhatu, near Devi Mandap Road P.O.- Adalhatu, P.S.- Lalpur, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The state of Jharkhand

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Department, having office at Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.

¶9

The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Kalinagar, Chaibagan Namkom P.O. & P.S.- Namkom, District- Ranchi.

¶10

The Examination controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Kalinagar, Chaibagan Namkom P.O. & P.S.Namkom, District- Ranchi

¶11

… … Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶14

--For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Mishra, Advocate For the Resp.-JSSC : Mr. Tejo Mistri, Advocate For the Resp.- State : Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria, Advocate

¶15

¶16

Through Video Conferencing

¶17

¶18

06 /24.02.2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra is

¶19

present.

¶20

2. Mr. Tejo Mistri, learned counsel is appearing on behalf of the respondent – J.S.S.C.

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the respondent- State Ms. Varsha Ramsisaria is also present.

¶22

4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶23

“(I) For the issuance of fresh answer sheet of the questions paper in the subject of Sanskrit because there are wrong answers figured in the answer sheet in Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Exam- 2016 (CGTTCE-2016), for which examination has been held on 25.11.2017 and examination has been conducted by the Jharkhand staff selection commission, Ranchi.

¶24

(II) To consider the case of the petitioner for the appointment for the post of the Graduate Trained Teacher on the basis of score obtained as per the new answer sheets because there are wrong answers figured in the answer sheet issued by the respondent for the several questions asked in the examination of Sanskrit paper for which examination has been held on 25.11.2017 by the respondent in Combined Graduate Trained

¶25

¶26

Teacher Competitive Exam- 2016 (CGTTCE- 2016) conducted by the Jharkhand staff selection commission, Ranchi. (III) To prepare a fresh list of successful candidates on the basis of the new list prepared for the appointment for the post of the Graduate trained teacher, on the basis of the fresh answer sheet and fresh cutoff marks.”

¶27

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a candidate in the examination for the post of graduate trained teacher for which examination was held on 25.11.2017 in Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competition Examination, 2016 conducted by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission and he was appearing for the subject Sanskrit. After completion of the examination, the respondents had published the answer sheet.

¶28

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that repeated objections were sought to be made by the petitioner, but respondents have not allowed the petitioner to make any application for correction in the answer sheet. The learned counsel has also submitted that answers of certain questions bearing no. 86, 97, 102, 104, 106 and 119 were incorrect.

¶29

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that although the petitioner has alleged that several times the petitioner wanted to make objections to the answers of aforesaid questions but was not allowed to do so, but neither any foundational fact in connection with any date of making such objection nor any letter of objection which he claims that he wanted to file, has been annexed along with the writ petition. This Court further finds that the answer sheet was published as back as in the year 2018 and thereafter the objections were considered and disposed of which is apparent from Annexure- 3 itself.

¶30

8. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.

¶31

9. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

¶32

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶33

Pankaj

Gurudas Hajra v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurudas Hajra v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Kumar Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajendra Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Bibhishan Prasad Vs Damodar Valley Corporation through Member Secretary

Singeshwar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shashi Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Water Resources Department

Suleman Ansari Vs Union of India through the Section Officer Ministry of Labour