That the respondents – Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (Commission) invited applications for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police through limited competitive examination from the eligible candidates vide advertisement No 09/2017.
That out of total 3219 candidates appeared in the examination only 663 candidates were able to obtain the minimum qualification marks in the written examination.
That thereafter, the respective original writ petitioners filed the writ petitions before the High Court for appropriate reliefs or directing to strike down the questions which were out of the syllabus and/or of 4 18 which the key answers were incorrect. The 6 18 Division Bench of the High Court also observed that even if the marks would be added of such questions in favour of the writ petitioners/appellants, the same would also be awarded to other candidates and in that view of the matter, there will be no change in the merit position as existing on the date as they were all short of one or two marks from the last selected candidate and if one or two marks would be awarded to them the same would be awarded to the successful candidates as well, therefore, the fact remains the same with respect to the position of the appellants in comparison to the successful candidates.
Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners – appellants has submitted that as such the first representation was made by the original writ 8 18 petitioners on 01.12.2017 which was within the time limit for submitting the objections. 1
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/analysis-of-bail-granting-criteria-in-criminal-cases/
It is further submitted that even the High Court has also materially erred in observing that even if the marks would be added of such questions, it will be added to all the candidates and therefore, no prejudice shall be caused to the original writ petitioners. 1 It is further submitted that even if there was some discrepancy in the answers with 11 18 respect to certain questions, the same was with respect to all the candidates and therefore, even if, the marks are added with respect to such questions, no prejudice shall be caused to the original writ petitioners as similar marks will have to be added in case of other selected candidates.
They submitted their objections with respect to nine questions and according to the original 12 18 writ petitioners, answers with respect to nine questions were incorrect.
Therefore, the High Court ought to have considered the objections on merits and/or called for the expert’s opinion on nine questions of which as per the original writ petitioners, answers were incorrect.
However, it is required to be noted that as the original writ petitioners failed to achieve the minimum qualifying marks by one or two marks only, therefore, if some marks would have been added they would be achieving the minimum qualifying marks and therefore, they would have been eligible and their cases would have been considered on merits. Matters are remitted back to the Division Bench of the High Court for fresh decision of Letters Patent Appeals in accordance with law and on its own merits and in light of the observations made hereinabove.
Case Title: SACHIT KUMAR SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND (2023 INSC 455)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002793-002798 / 2023
