MATILDA TOPPO & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS , in both the writ applications, have prayed for stay of the examination scheduled to be held on 2nd June , 2013 for the limited examination of the departmental candidates for the post of lady supervisor under the department of Women and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand. An interlocutory application with said prayer has also been filed in W.P.S. No. 1316 of 2013 being I.A. No. 3176 of 2013.

(2.) THE writ petitions are directed against the order of cancellation of the examinations and the results pursuant to the examination held on 18.12.2011 and 25.4.2012 for such appointment to the post of lady supervisor through the channel of limited examination of departmental candidates. It is argued by the learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Anil Kr Sinha, appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the entire documents on record which includes the report of the committee constituted by the department itself annexed as Annexure-17 to W.P.S. No. 1316 of 2013 dated 16.5.2012 show that in the aforesaid 2 examinations held separately for back log and regular vacancies of lady supervisor, however what has only been detected is wrong answer to one question each in two examinations. In fact the committee suggested to delete the marks of the said wrong answer by evaluating the results afresh and preparing a fresh merit list. It is submitted that no malpractices were discovered during the course of inquiry by the committee, still the decision has been taken by the Respondent- State to cancel the examination which is highly arbitrary and illegal. The same is under challenge in the present writ applications. However, during the pendency of the writ applications, without the issue being adjudicated the respondents have chosen to hold fresh examination in the same nature on 2nd June, 2013 combining the vacancies of both the examinations which were earmarked for backlog and regular vacancies. This would definitely have an adverse effect on the case of the present petitioners, who are admittedly one of the successful candidates.

(3.) IN these circumstances, it appears that the petitioners are justified in seeking a stay of fresh examination scheduled to be held on 2nd June, 2013 fo filling up the same vacancies. In that view of the matter, respondents are restrained from holding such examination scheduled to be held on 2 nd June, 2013.