Dismissed

Mohammad Alam v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC25 Apr 2013CWJC/8372/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the evaluation of the Junior Engineer (Civil) examination. The petitioner sought re-evaluation using lower negative marking, but the Court rejected the claim as the advertisement clearly stipulated the 0.5 mark deduction, and it was too late to reopen the process after subsequent selections were made. Quality: thin

What did the court decide?

None. The writ application and the oral prayer for re-evaluation were rejected.

Mohammad Alam Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8372 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== Mohammad Alam Son Of Shamshul Haque Ansari Resident Of Village Nehra Chowk, Nand Lal Tola, P.O. + P.S.- Chapra, District Saran (Chapra) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary , State Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna, PostVetenary College, Patna - 14 4. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna, Post- Vetenary College, Patna - 14

¶3

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 3 25-04-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶4

The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:-

¶5

“1(i) For direction to the respondents to re-draw the result of Junior Engineer (Civil) of Advertisement No. 1906 of 2006 after deducting 0.2 number for each wrong answer in stead of deducting 0.5 numbers, as has been done in Advertisement No. 1006/2006, 1406/2006 and 044/2011 issued by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna with respect to the same post and thereby to fill up the 2058 seats of Junior Engineer (Civil) out of which 428 seats are reserved for MBC Category. The petitioner belong to Most Back Ward Category. II. For selection and appointment of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) pursuant to advertisement No. 1906 of 2006, as the petitioner has been deprived from final result, for ½ number only. The cut marks is 67.05 marks, whereas the

¶6

Patna High Court CWJC No.8372 of 2012 (3) dt.25-04-2013

¶7

2/4

¶8

petitioner has secured 77 marks. If 0.2 marks is deducted for each wrong answer, then the petitioner would certainly secure the final result.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the deduction of 0.5 marks for each of the wrong answer has been wrongly followed by the Bihar Staff Selection in case of evaluating the answer-sheet for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) and in fact it ought to have been only 0.2 by way of negative mark for each of the wrong answer. He has also explained that the petitioner who had secured 67.5 marks, if he was subjected to negative marking by way of deducting 0.2 for each of the wrong answer, he could have got higher marks and could have also qualified as he has missed the selection only by 0.5 marks.

¶9

In the considered opinion of this Court, such submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be noted only for its being rejected. The advertisement in very clear term had prescribed that:-

¶10

^^ijh{kk oLrqfu’B gksxh vkSj cgqfodfYi; iz”u iqNs tk;saxsA lgh mrj ds fy, ,d vad feysxk ,oa xyr mrj ds fy, 0-5 vad dkVk tk;sxkA**

¶11

This being an open invitation to all the candidates and

¶12

giving them prior information with regard to the norms of selection of the examination as also mode of evaluation of the answer becomes part of the condition under which the petitioner

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.8372 of 2012 (3) dt.25-04-2013

¶14

3/4

¶15

had filed his application. The petitioner, having thus taken a chance with the aforesaid condition stipulated, today cannot turn around to say that the negative marking should have been only 0.2 for each of the wrong answer in place of 0.5 as laid down in the advertisement.

¶16

In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in this application and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶17

After this part order has been dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if his OMR Sheet is once again evaluated on the norms as being in the advertisement because the petitioner has a feeling that he still will qualify as he has missed only by 0.5 marks.

¶18

In the considered opinion of this Court, a mere speculation of the petitioner cannot be a ground for directing the Commission to reevaluate the answer-sheet specially when the results were declared way back and the appointment also on the basis of the recommendation made by the Commission has been made. In fact, it is too late in the day to reopen the chapter of selection and appointment on the post of Junior Engineer in terms of Advertisement No. 1906 of 2006 because the result of the next examination of Junior Engineer has already been published and the recommendation has also been made for the same by the

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.8372 of 2012 (3) dt.25-04-2013

¶20

4/4

¶21

Commission. Once the unfilled post of Advertisement No. 1906 of 2006 had become subject matter of the subsequent selection process, there would be now no question of allowing anyone to now reopen the earlier selection process for being recommended and appointed.

¶22

Thus, for the reasons indicated above, this Court will also reject the oral prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner which was not even included in the prayer portion of the writ application.

¶23

That being so, it has to be held that there is no merit in this writ application and the same as, accordingly, dismissed.

¶24

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶25

Rishi/-

Mohammad Alam v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Alam v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

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

Deoki Nandan Roys Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Chaturbhuj Manjhi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Laxmi Kumari Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Kavindra Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

The Managing Committee Madarsa Islamia Arbiya Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shakuntala Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.