MOSRAT ZIYA TARA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the writ petitioner. She sought quashing of the appointment of respondent No.5 as Civil Judge (Junior Division) 2015 Batch under BCI Category asserting that his appointment was illegal and has been extended undue benefit by Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service Commission by allowing him to be interviewed as BCI Category Candidate whereas he was BCII Candidate and cleared his preliminary and Mains Examination in that category only. After loosing her battle in the Writ Court for a direction to the respondents for inclusion of her name as successful candidate in the merit list in BCI Category, she has now preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal, which is at Admission stage. We with the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, take it on Board for its final disposal.

(2.) Admit.

(3.) The process of appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) was initiated by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand by sending requisition to the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), vide letter no. 4118 dated 13.05.2013, pursuant thereto, Advertisement No. 04/2013 was issued by JPSC inviting applications for appointment on 116 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The appellant submitted her application under BCI category and respondent no. 5 submitted his application under BCII category. Both were issued admit cards under their respective categories and they appeared in P.T. examination, which was held on 27.04.2014. In the result of P.T. examination which was published on 26.05.2014, the respondent no. 5 was declared successful under BCII category. The appellant when noticed from the result published on the website of JPSC that the cutoff marks for BCI category was 46 whereas, she had obtained 72 marks in P.T. examination, upon her enquiry from the JPSC she was informed that she was treated as a General category candidate. She then submitted a representation on 04.06.2014 before the Controller of Examination for declaring her result under BCI category however, it was rejected on 16.06.2014, in terms of the advertisement and she was treated as General category candidate. Constrained, the appellant approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2826 of 2014 seeking a direction upon the respondent-JPSC to permit her to appear in the Mains examination for Civil Judge (Junior Division). The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 07.07.2014 and the appellant was permitted to appear in the Mains examination as BCI candidate which was held on 19.07.2014. Both the appellant as well as the respondent no. 5 were declared successful in the Mains examination in their respective categories and they were directed to appear before the Interview Board. The respondent no. 5 appeared for interview on 24.01.2015 and the appellant was interviewed on 25.01.2015. In the meantime, the appellant received notice in L.P.A. No. 311 of 2014 which was filed by JPSC challenging the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 2826 of 2014. The Letters Patent Appeal was finally disposed of on the statement made on behalf of JPSC that the appellant did not make the final selection list. The final selection list was put on website of JPSC on 13.02.2015, from where the appellant could gather that the last selected candidate under BCII candidate had secured 267 marks whereas, the respondent no. 5 had secured only 250 marks. However, the respondent no. 5 was declared successful under BCI category, for which the cutoff marks was 239. Alleging illegality in preparation of the final result and asserting that the respondent no. 5 has been adjusted/selected under BCI category by giving extraordinary benefit against the law, the appellant approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1936 of 2015.