RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission for constituting a committee of subject matter experts for correct determination of the answer of the question Nos. 14, 64 & 94 of Code D of General Studies-I and question Nos. 16, 21 & 92 of Code D of General Studies-II alleging that the same are incorrect. It is further prayed that a direction may be given to the JPSC to allot 2 marks to the petitioner in respect of the question No. 21 of Code D General Studies-II, as has been done by the JPSC in the revised answer key, as the question was itself wrong.

(2.) The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the JPSC') had published an advertisement for Combined Civil Services Examination-2016 vide Advertisement No. 23/2016. The petitioner applied for the said examination and appeared in the Preliminary Examination conducted on 18.12.2016. After the examination, the JPSC published the answer key on its website and a notice was published inviting objection from the candidates, who had appeared in the examination for any discrepancy in the answer key. The candidates were informed that the objection can be submitted through Registered Post, Speed Post or by hand till 03.01.2017. Thereafter, several candidates raised objections to the answer key and the objections were placed before the panel of experts for verification of the answer key published by the JPSC on web-site. After getting the expert opinion, the answer of some questions were revised by the experts i.e. for General Studies Paper-1 Question No. 42 (Series-A) and Question No. 65 (Series-A) were found to be incorrect. In the General Studies Paper-II, model answer of question No. 25 of Series-A was also not found to be correct. So far as question No. 13 of Series-A of General Studies Paper-II is concerned, it was found by the experts that none of the options was correct and as such two marks were allotted to all the candidates and information to that effect was also given to the candidates by the JPSC by way of press communiqu . Thereafter, the OMR sheets of the candidates were evaluated and the result was published on 25.02.2017. It is alleged by the petitioner that he raised detailed objection with regard to six questions (Paper-I and Paper-II) with valid proof and supporting documents, but the objection put forth by the petitioner was not considered by the expert committee. During the pendency of the writ petition, the JPSC published the result of the Preliminary Examination on 25.02.2017 and the result was brought on record by the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondent-JPSC has acted in arbitrary, whimsical and illegal manner by not taking into consideration the objection of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondents have not given any receipt of the letter of objection submitted by the petitioner and have not taken into consideration the objections of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the interest of justice, the objection of the petitioner with regard to six questions must be decided afresh by the expert committee. It is an admitted position that the respondents themselves corrected few answer key, which goes to show some flaw in the answer key published at the first stage. It is further submitted that the mentioning of date by the petitioner was a technical error and was corrected before giving the objection to the JPSC. It is also submitted that if the petitioner had any ill motive, he could have submitted new letter of objection before this Court. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner has not submitted any objection, three other candidates have also raised objection by speed post to various answer key including those raised by the petitioner, however, the respondents have not considered the objections of those candidates also. It is further submitted that the respondents have acted with malafide intention by not giving receipt of the objection submitted by the petitioner and are also not taking into consideration the objection of the petitioner as well as the objection of three other candidates.