AJIT KUMAR GOPE Vs. CHAIRMAN, EXAMINATION CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is preferred against the order dated 10.03.2014 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1176 of 2014 by which the writ petition was disposed of directing the Examination Controller, Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi to consider the petitioners' representations and pass appropriate order within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order.

(2.) IN pursuance of the Advertisement No. 6/2013 issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, the appellants applied for 5th combined Civil Services (PT) Examination, 2013. Provisional admit -cards were issued to the appellants. The appellants appeared in the examination and filled up the OMR Sheets. The appellants did not colour the bubbles against the subject code, though the details of subject code, roll no. etc. were given in writing. The respondent -authorities rejected the OMR Sheets of the appellants on the ground that the appellants have not coloured the bubbles against the subject code. The appellant made specific request to the respondent -authorities to evaluate their OMR Sheets, but nothing has been done. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed W.P.(C) No. 1176 of 2014 seeking for a direction to the respondents to publish the result of the 5th combined Civil Services (PT) Examination, 2013 held by the JPSC. The same was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 10.03.2014 directing the respondents to consider the appellants' representations and pass appropriate order within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the appellants in writing. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

(3.) MR . Prashant Pallav, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants have to fill the subject column in the OMR Sheets vide Annexure 4 and the appellants have not coloured the bubbles for the subject code and therefore, the respondents were not justified in rejecting the OMR Sheets of the appellants. In this regard, according to the appellants, the OMR Sheets also contain the signature of the Invigilator for taking the information given by the candidates and while so, the respondents ought to have evaluated the answer sheets of the appellants. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in Writ -A No. 1625 of 2013 dated 11.01.2013.