ARUNKUMARJHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed for commanding the respondents to verify the answer books of General Medicine of the petitioner and after verification to correct his mark-sheet, publish his result on that basis, and declare him successful in the Post-Graduate Medical Admission Test Examination, 1987 and subsequently to direct the respondents to admit the petitioner in the Post-Graduate in any Medical College in the State of Bihar.

(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present writ application is that the petitioner, who fulfils all the requisite qualification for appearing in the Post Graduate Medical Admission Test Examination, 1987, filled up his application form for the said examination, which was scheduled to be held from 20th of January, 1988. Subsequently, an Admit Card was issued to the petitioner and he appeared in the said examination. As according to him, he had fared-well in the said examination, as such, he expected that he would succeed in the examination. But when the result was hung on the Notice Board on 9/1/1988 and subsequently published in the 'Times of India' on 10/4/1988, the petitioner was surprised to find that his roll number was missing from the merit list and persons, who had secured only 65 marks, which were much below the marks expected by the petitioner, were selected for admission.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the answer sheets were evaluated by the computer after re-programming for,the concerned subject. According to the learned counsel some times the computer gives erratic results and, as such, he had requested for re-evaluation of bis answer sheets. The petitioner had made representation before Respondent No. 2, the then Controller of Examination on 10/5/1988 and he was assured by Respondent No. 2 that the needful would be done, but, inspite of assurance no re-evaluation was done inspitc of several reminders filed on behalf of the petitioner and, as such, the petitioner had mo effective remedy left but to invoke the jurisdiction of this court.