Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 60 (JHR)

Arun Kumar Dubey v. State of Jharkhand

2007-02-02

N.N.TIWARI

body2007
JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J 1. Whether the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (in short J.P.S.C.) can change the ratio for admitting the candidates to Main Examination, is the question, which falls for consideration in this writ application. 2. The petitioner, asserting in negative, has prayed for quashing the result of Second Combined Civil Services Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2004 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Examination') conducted by the JPSC on the ground that the result of the said Preliminary Examination has not been published according to the ratio mentioned in the syllabus. In stead of publishing ten times of the number of advertised vacancies, result has been published of more than hundred times changing the whole purpose of the Preliminary Examination. The petitioner is one of the candidates, who appeared and succeeded in the said Preliminary Examination. 3. It has been stated that Advertisement No. 7/2005, was published in the various national daily newspapers by the JPSC for holding the Examination to fill up the sanctioned graduate level gazetted posts. In the said advertisement, numbers of posts were advertised as follows: (i) Jharkhand Administrative Service : 86 ii. Jharkhand Police Service : 12 iii. Jharkhand Finance Service & Jharkhand Finance (Commercial Taxes) Service : 71 iv. Jharkhand Co-operative Service : 06 Total Posts 175 4. For the purpose of the said Examination, the JPSC published the syllabus and its plan. As per the plan, the Examination comprises of two successive stages; first Preliminary Examination which was objective type for selection of the candidates to allow them to appear at the Main Examination, and second Main Examination which comprises of written test and interview, through which the candidates for various services and posts are to be selected. 5. As per Clause-2 of the plan of the Examination, Preliminary Examination consists of two papers (objective type) of maximum 300 marks in the subjects set out in Part-A (Preliminary Examination). The Preliminary Examination is meant to serve as a Screening Test; the marks obtained by the candidates in that examination are not to be counted for determining their order of merit finally. The number of candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination was about ten times to the total approximate number of vacancies to be filled in various services and posts. The number of candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination was about ten times to the total approximate number of vacancies to be filled in various services and posts. Only the candidates declared to have qualified in the Preliminary Examination will be eligible for appearing in the Main Examination of that year provided they are also found eligible otherwise. 6. The petitioner applied against the said advertisement and was allotted Roll No. 1106315. He appeared in the Preliminary Examination held on 28th May, 2005 and has been declared successful and the result was published on 21st October, 2006. However, according to the petitioner, the result was not published in accordance with the syllabus and instead of publishing the result of the candidates ten times of the vacancies advertised, it was of nearly hundred times candidates. 7. It has been stated that the Union Public Service Commission publishes the result of the candidates appearing in the Preliminary Examination twelve times to the number of vacancies advertised. Chhatisgarh Public Service Commission publishes the result of the candidates appearing in the Preliminary Examination fifteen times to the number of vacancies advertised. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission also follows the same pattern. In Jharkhand itself, the JPSC declared the ratio of ten times of the vacancies. However, the JPSC did not follow the said ratio this time and result of 16000 candidates has been published for the Main Examination as against 175 vacancies. According to the petitioner, the object of Preliminary Examination is for screening the number of candidates and that the said object has been frustrated by publishing the result of a large number of candidates, which is wholly arbitrary and illegal and the same is liable to be quashed. 8. The JPSC has contested the petitioner's claim stating, inter alia, that the question raised in this writ application is no longer res integra. Similar question fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Tirkey and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. {W.P.(S) No. 2773 of 2004} and after hearing the parties, the Division Bench of this Court, inter alia, held that the candidates can be allowed to appear in the Main Examination by fixing a cut-off mark. Certain guidelines were also issued vide order dated 24th December, 2004 passed in the said writ petition. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. {W.P.(S) No. 2773 of 2004} and after hearing the parties, the Division Bench of this Court, inter alia, held that the candidates can be allowed to appear in the Main Examination by fixing a cut-off mark. Certain guidelines were also issued vide order dated 24th December, 2004 passed in the said writ petition. The JPSC, inter alia, was given liberty to call for such number of candidates to appear at the Main Examination, as it feels proper taking into consideration the total number of vacancies or on the basis of the ratio of posts and successful candidates, as may be fixed by the JPSC. The said guideline was given with regard to the First Combined Civil Services Competitive (Preliminary) Examination. 9. It has been submitted that the JPSC has merely followed the said guideline in the Second Combined Civil Services Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2004 and has fixed the cut-off marks for publication of the result for the Preliminary Examination, as more number of candidates of each category qualified for the Main Examination. It has been stated that anything mentioned in the syllabus is not final and mandatory, inasmuch as the syllabus of the examination regarding the ratio was contrary to the guidelines issued by this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Tirkey and Ors. (Supra). 10. Further in the case of Shiv Shankar Pandey v. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi and Ors. {W.P(C) No. 1976 of 2005} exactly the same issue was raised, which was grounded almost on similar facts, and this Court vide order dated 13th June, 2005, relying on the earlier decision of the Division Bench in the case of Pramod Kumar Tirkey and Ors. (Supra), held that there was no arbitrariness or irrationality in publishing the result on the basis of cut-off marks. 11. It has been submitted that in view of the said earlier decisions (Supra), nothing remains to be decided afresh in this writ application and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel, appearing for the JPSC, at length. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents emphatically placed reliance on the earlier decisions of this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Tirkey and Ors. (Supra) and also in Shiv Shankar Pandey (Supra). Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel, appearing for the JPSC, at length. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents emphatically placed reliance on the earlier decisions of this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Tirkey and Ors. (Supra) and also in Shiv Shankar Pandey (Supra). On perusal of the said two decisions of this Court, I find that this Court had occasion to consider and decide the same issue in the said cases, which is involved in this writ application. 13. Having considered the respective contentions of the parties as also the earlier decisions aforementioned, this Court holds that there is no arbitrariness on the part of the JPSC simply in calling for the candidates even in deviation of the syllabus for appearing at the Main Examination. The JPSC is also at liberty to call the candidates either on the basis of the ratio of the posts and number of successful candidates or on the basis of cut-off marks, as earlier has been held in the earlier decisions of this Court referred to above. This Court thus holds that there is no arbitrariness or irrationality in admitting the candidates for Main Examination of the Second Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination by fixing a cut-off mark even deviating from or irrespective of the ratio mentioned in syllabus. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion and finding, I find no merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed