ABHAY MINZ Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated 29.11.2013 passed in WPS No. 3802/2011, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that no other person, who has secured lesser marks than the petitioner has been selected.

(2.) AN advertisement No. 3/04 -05 was published by the JPSC, Ranchi, for appointment of Assistant Prosecution Officers -2005. Case of the appellant is that he successfully qualified in the Mains Examination and called for interview and final list was published in the newspaper dated 15.6.2010, but the name of the appellant did not find place therein. The appellant sought information under RTI Act regarding his marks and final cut off marks for selected candidates of ST category, as the appellant belongs to ST category. The information was supplied to the appellant on 10.05.2011. Further case of the appellant is that the candidates, whose Roll Nos. being 1000442, 1001463, 1001297, 1002791 and 1002562, have obtained lesser marks than the appellant and inspite of that they have been appointed on the post of APO, whereas the appellant, who has secured higher marks, was denied appointment. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed W.P.(S) No. 3802/2011 and the same was dismissed, holding that no other person who has secured lesser marks than the appellant, has been selected.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant -Mr. Anil Kumar has submitted that as per the information supplied to the appellant on 10.05.2011 (Annexure -3), the total marks secured by the appellant has been stated as 257 and has been placed at serial no.18. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that as per the information furnished to the appellant under RTI Act, subsequent to the filing of Letters Patent Appeal vide letter dated 28.01.2014, in which the Information Commission has stated that the marks secured by the candidates in General Hindi and General English were not added for arriving at the grand total and, therefore, JPSC was not right in adding the marks in General Hindi and General English and saying that the appellant has not secured the minimum cut off marks. The Learned counsel further contended that the learned Single Judge did not properly appreciate the varying information furnished by the Public Information Officer of JPSC and considering the marks of the appellant, the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the writ petition.