Disposed

Vinod Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. Bihar Staff Selection Commissi

Patna HC17 Apr 2013CWJC/3762/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench observed the Court must inspect the petitioner OMR sheets to determine if technical errors caused mark reduction. The court fixed a specific date for inspection with an opportunity for the petitioners to file representations before the Commission.

What did the court decide?

Fixed a date for the petitioners to inspect their OMR sheets in the presence of the Commission Secretary to ascertain if marks were altered.

Vinod Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs Bihar Staff Selection… — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3762 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Vinod Kumar Yadav S/O Sitaram Yadav R/O C/O Vimlesh Kumar Yadav (J.E.), Quarter No. D-11, Koshi Colony, Birpur, District- Supaul 2. Arun Kumar S/O Darwani Chaudhary R/O C/O Chatranath Jha, MohallaNew Balbhadrapur, P.S.-Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga 3. Deoki Nandan Prasad S/O Ram Nandan Mandal R/O Village- Manjhaul Tola Sanghat,P.S.- Cheriya Bariyarpur, District- Begusarai 4. Anand Saurabh S/O Suresh Prasad R/O C/O Vimal Sharma Mohalla, P.O. + P.S.- Ishakchak Bhuramal Colony, District- Bhagalpur 5. Ved Prakash Kamal S/O Ashwini Kumar Verma R/O VillageChakrasalpur, P.S.- Ranabigha, District-Nalanda

¶3

Rajesh Kumar Ram S/O Ganesh Ram R/O Village- Mastichak, P.O.Mastichak, District- Saran (Chapra)

¶4

Sunil Kumar Sinha S/O Late Bishundeo Prasad R/O Flat No.- 103a, R.L. Vatika, Salimpur Ahra, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, Patna, District- Patna

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Bihar Staff Selection Commission Through Its Secretary P.O.- B.V. College, Patna-14 2. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary Department Of Water Resources, Bihar, Patna 3. Sanjay Kumar Sinha S/O Not Known R/O Now Known, Selectee In The Staff Selection Commission Exam.Roll No. 000108, C/O Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna-14 4. Anil Paswan S/O Not Known R/O Not Known, Selectee Of Bihar Staff Selection Commission, With Roll No. 003245, C/O Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna-14

¶6

.... .... Respondent/s

¶7

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Radha Mohan Pathak, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. N. Hoda Khan SC-18 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶8

5 17-04-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties in respect of the following relief:"Commanding the Respondent No. 1 to declare the petitioners as pass in the Competitive Exam. for the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil and Mechanical) held by Respondent no. 1 pursuant to

¶9

Patna High Court CWJC No.3762 of 2012 (5) dt.17-04-2013

¶10

¶11

Advertisement No. 1906, dated 29.11.2006, the result of which has been published on 5 Jan, 2012, (contained in Annexure-3, to this writ case). And petitioner also pray for a direction to Respondents to recommend the names of these petitioners for appointment as Junior Engineers." The long and short of this case is confined with

¶12

regard to the marks obtained by the petitioners in objective type examination, an aspect which was recorded in the order of this Court dated 26.3.2012 which reads as follows:-

¶13

"Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’). The Commission held a competitive examination for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil and Mechanical) under Advertisement No. 1906 dated 29.11.2006. The results are stated to have been published on 5.1.2011.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the marks secured by them as displayed on the website was above the cut-off. But their names did not figure in the list of successful candidates published in the news paper. When they sought to make enquiry their names have been removed from the website also. Persons with lesser marks than them as displayed on the website have been considered for

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.3762 of 2012 (5) dt.17-04-2013

¶16

¶17

recommendation.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the Commission submits that the answer sheets were in the optical Marker Reader format. There were certain errors in uploading of the marks. The entire issue has been re scrutinised and errors/anomalies removed. The petitioners have not secured qualifying marks as mentioned in the counter affidavit individually.

¶19

If the answer sheet was in the OMR format, it was to be screened by a software and analysis/marking done by the software itself. If marking was by the software the marks would have been uploaded automatically. If there was any error in screening and recognising the correct answer by the software leading to wrong entries surely there must have been a process by which the errors were discovered. After this discovery there must have been notes containing discussion of the same and the need for rectification. There must have then been a decision of the Commission for making such correction.

¶20

Let the Commission produce the entire original record."

¶21

The grievance of the petitioners in this regard is

¶22

that they had secured sufficient marks to qualify in the written test for being recommended for appointment on the posts of Junior Engineer and infact their names were also included in the Website as successful candidates. They had therefore all the reasons to

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.3762 of 2012 (5) dt.17-04-2013

¶24

¶25

believe that they had secured more than cut off marks. Subsequently, however when Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as the Commission) had declared the result of the Examination, the petitioners’ names did not figure in the list of successful candidates and on enquiry they came to know that the Commission had reviewed the publication of the result made on the website because there was some apparent technical error committed by the agency conducting such correction in O.M.R. sheets of the written test. The claim of the petitioners in this connection is that such correction was made by the Commission itself in a disorganized and arbitrary manner and, in fact, the petitioners’ marks secured by them in OMR sheets have been reduced.

¶26

Mr. Lalit Kishore, Principal Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Commission having filed supplementary counter affidavit as also having produced the record as directed in the aforesaid order of this Court dated 26.03.2012 has submitted that there is no question of the petitioners being under marked or their marks having been reduced in any manner rather there being technical flaw in the result having been detected by the agency engaged for the commission for preparation of result itself and thereafter the

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.3762 of 2012 (5) dt.17-04-2013

¶28

¶29

matter had been gone into by the authorities with great care and caution whereafter the earlier result published on the website was withdrawn and correct result was published. In this regard he has referred to para 7 to 14 of the supplementary counter affidavit which reads as follows:-

¶30

"7. That it is further stated that during the process of scanning of OMR Sheet, the errors have been detected, many times due to the technical fault. Time and again the said errors were rectified by the agency and an error free data was prepared.

¶31

That the staff and officers of the Commission checked certain percentage of OMR answer sheets to determine as to whether the evaluation was correctly made or not.

¶32

That in the instant case, at the time of evaluation, a team headed by Sri Zamiruddin Ansari, Member of the Commission, was given the task to supervise the evaluation.

¶33

That the C.D. given by the Agency was uploaded on the website to enable the candidates to get the information regarding their marks details.

¶34

That the as soon as the mistake was detected, the matter was reported to the authorities and a team was formed to recheck the entire result vide letter no. 650/AA, dated 15.02.2012.

¶35

That the entire result was rechecked

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.3762 of 2012 (5) dt.17-04-2013

¶37

¶38

before its publication. the whole exercise, which was undertaken by the Commission, was dealt in original file.

¶39

That the matter was subsequently reported to the concerned agency as to how the marks of some of the candidates, differed with the original.

¶40

That in response thereto, the concerned agency admitted their mistake by saying that the old file was sent to the Commission and then the vender sent a error free data/C.D. to the Commission."

¶41

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and

¶42

materials on record this Court does not find any infirmity in publication of result based on correction of OMR Sheets where the technical flaw in computerised evaluation is quite possible. The noting in the files as referred to by the Commission in the supplementary counter affidavit also supports that such error was committed by the agency and was rectified at the instance of the Commission. In all fairness such flaws and faults ought to have been avoided by the Commission's agency and the Commission itself should have cross checked the results before publishing it on website.

¶43

None the less learned Senior Counsel for the Commission has voluntarily offered inspection of O.M.R. Sheets of the petitioners to satisfy themselves that the Commission has

¶44

Patna High Court CWJC No.3762 of 2012 (5) dt.17-04-2013

¶45

¶46

not interfered with their marks in the O.M.R. sheets rather their marks have been allotted as per their performance in the written test.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioners also agrees that an inspection of the O.M.R. sheets of the petitioners to them will make them satisfied.

¶48

In view of consent of both the parties, as recorded above, this Court would fix the date of 29.04.2013 when only the petitioners themselves and none else will appear in the office of Secretary to the Commission and shall be afforded inspection of their original O.M.R. sheets in presence of the Secretary of the Commission. If the petitioners or anyone of them would find any thing objectionable in course of inspection of their O.M.R. sheets, it will be open to them to file their individual separate representation on the same day or till the next day as with regard to the marks allotted to them which then will be considered by the Chairman of the Commission himself who must pass a reasoned order on their such representation(s).

¶49

Let it be however made clear that this Court having not inspected individual OMR Sheets of the petitioners has expressed no opinion on the merit of complaint of the petitioners that their answer Sheets (OMR Sheets) were interfered by the

¶50

Patna High Court CWJC No.3762 of 2012 (5) dt.17-04-2013

¶51

¶52

Commission.

¶53

With the aforementioned observation and

¶54

direction, this writ application is disposed of.

¶55

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Amin/-

Vinod Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. Bihar Staff Selection Commissi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Yadav and Ors. v. Bihar Staff Selection Commissi

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

Awadhesh Kishore Mishra @ Awad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sumit Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Rajeev Kumar Ranjan Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Kumari Nilam Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ramawtar Purbey Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sita Ram Ram Vs The State Of Bihar