Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1772 (PAT)

Alok Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2007-11-14

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD, MIHIR KUMAR JHA

body2007
Judgment 1. Petitioner is a candidate for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). He applied for his appointment in pursuance to an advertisement of the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission", but he has not been recommended for appointment. Accordingly, his prayer is to issue an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to re-total and re-evaluate the marks obtained by him in few subjects. His further prayer is to hold the entire process of selection to have been vitiated for not following the moderate system in granting the marks. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is thus three fold. According to him, he filed application for retotalling of the marks but no decision has been taken. His another grievance is that although he has asked for re-evaluation of the marks, but same has also not been done. The third grievance is that the Commission while making recommendation did not follow the moderate system as approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh & Another V/s. U.P. Public Service Commission & Anr., 2007 3 BBCJ 153. 3. Mr. Praveen Kumar No. 1 appears on behalf of the petitioner. Bihar Public Service Commission is represented by Mr. Sanjay Pandey. 4. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that his prayer for retotalling has not been done, we are of the opinion that in case petitioner had made any such prayer, same may be disposed of within four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order in accordance with law. 5. As regards the re-evaluation of marks, counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any rule which provides for re- evaluation of the marks. In the absence thereof, we are afraid this prayer cannot be granted. 6. So far the grievance of the petitioner that the Commission had not adopted the moderate system for evaluation of the marks is absolutely misconceived and the reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh & Another (supra) is patently misplaced. In the case of Sanjay Singh & Another (supra), the Supreme Court found the scaling system adopted by the Commission to be absurd. Here, nothing has been pointed out to show that the evaluation system adopted by the Commission is anyway arbitrary. 7. We do not find any merit in the application. In the case of Sanjay Singh & Another (supra), the Supreme Court found the scaling system adopted by the Commission to be absurd. Here, nothing has been pointed out to show that the evaluation system adopted by the Commission is anyway arbitrary. 7. We do not find any merit in the application. It is dismissed accordingly with the direction aforesaid. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner makes an oral prayer for grant of certificate of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We are of the opinion that no substantial question of law being involved in the present case, the certificate sought for is not fit to be granted. Prayer stands rejected.