DINESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Navnit Prakash, learned A.C. to S.C.-III for the State and Mr. Sanjay Piparwall, learned counsel appearing for the J.P.S.C.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to advertisement no. 13 of 2008 which was published for appointment on the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Munsif), the petitioner applied for the post. The petitioner was declared successful in preliminary examination and in the mains examination also. However, after the final examination viva voce was conducted and final result was published, but, the name of the petitioner was not there.

(3.) The petitioner was applied for information under the RTI before the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (J.P.S.C.) whereby it was informed to the petitioner that the petitioner has got 82 marks in mains and 8 marks in interview i.e. total 90 marks. The main contention of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the viva voce total marks was fixed as 20 marks which is not in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Sain Garg Vs. State of Punjab & Ors, 1991 1 SCC 662. He referred paragraph 33 of the said judgment which is extracted herein below: