PUSPA KUMARI D/O SRI HARDEO SINGH W/O LATE ANJANI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to an advertisement issued in September 2007, vacancies were advertised in respect of Teachers (full time) on contract basis whose qualification was Intermediate. The appointment was to be initially of one year but, on satisfactory performance, was extendable further. Apart from others, petitioners responded. There were written test as provided in the advertisement. They passed and were duly appointed. They started teaching. Then there were complaints. Matter was enquired into. Out of about 63 persons who had applied, the top 10 meritlisted person's answer-sheets of written examination was sent for re-evaluation. Upon re-evaluation, it is now alleged that the petitioners secured much less mark than they were awarded. They are, thus, to be removed which is the action challenged. As noticed by this Court earlier, there were several moves to reevaluate. At one time, impression was given that there were serious totalling errors. This Court directed for production of the answer-sheets of the 5 persons involved in the present case and placing them on record. Answer-sheets of all the candidates, which were re-evaluated, have been brought on record. First question that arose why was a selective re-evaluation of only 10 candidates out of about 60? State's response would be that it was 5 amongst the first 10 who are to be selected. Court points out that on re-evaluation could be that a person, who was much lower down, could have secured better marks and became eligible for selection. This could not be defended by the State. Thus found, on this count alone, the selective re-evaluation cannot be sustained.

(2.) We then come to the substantive challenge as laid out by Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the petitioners. He submits that what is known as re-evaluation is merely retotalling. An examiner may give one mark, the other may differ because the questions are not all objective type questions. A subjective re-evaluation is impermissible. Scores cannot change because of subjective re-evaluation.

(3.) Having considered the matter, in my view, the first thing to be considered is whether it was a mere subjective re-evaluation or totalling error as well. By the last order passed in this case, Court had sought the assistance of learned counsel to pointout whether corrections/changes are as a consequence of retotalling or subjective re-evaluation. Learned counsel for the State and other counsel today agree that it is. not mathematical correction but only a subjective re-evaluation by a new examiner which has changed the marks. In my view, this is impermissible in any examination. The petitioners had been duly selected and are working. Their contract period expired which has also been extended. Merely because another examiner, on subjective consideration, comes to a different finding would not be proper to terminate petitioners' employment because petitioners are not at fault. In examination where theory papers are checked, subjective re-evaluation is never permitted unless it is a question of moderation which is not the case in the present case.