LAWS(PAT)-1989-9-8

SHEODHARI PRASAD SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On September 27, 1989
SHEODHARI PRASAD SAH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application was filed on 13th February, 1989 by the petitioner praying to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to revaluate the marks obtained by him in the subject 'General Knowledge' of 1985 Examination conducted by the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board.

(2.) This writ application was put up for its admission on 27-2-1989 and on that day the case was adjourned to enable the learned counsel for the State to obtain the answer book of the petitioner as also the question paper of the subject of General Knowledge and to produce them before this Court. The writ application, thereafter, was listed again for its admission on 4th April, 1989 and it appears that a prayer for time was made on behalf of the State and by way of last indulgence, this case was directed to be put up after two weeks. The writ application thereafter was listed for its admission again on 2-5-1989. On that day learned counsel for the State prayed for one more indulgence on which the following order was passed :

(3.) The other facts, which are apparent from the writ application as also the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, are as follows:- The subject General Knowledge was made a compulsory subject for the said examination. The petitioner who belongs to backward community of society and eligible submitted his application and appeared in the said examination but the result published on 11-2-1988 did not show his name in the list of successful candidates. The petitioner applied for marks. A marksheet (a copy of which has been appended as Annexure-3 to the writ application) as supplied showing that the petitioner secured 56 marks in General Hindi, 50 marks in two optional papers each but only 16 marks in General Knowledge. The petitioner claims that in the earlier examination of 1982 he had secured 153 marks out of 300 but as candidates securing upto 154 marks were selected, he unfortunately was not selected as he secured only one mark less. The petitioner sought revaluation of his answer book of General Knowledge as he was confident of obtaining more than 60% marks in the subject but no relief having been granted by the respondents, he chose to move this Court.