Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 155 (JHR)

Manoj Kumar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2009-02-02

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the corrigendum issued under Memo No. 1325 dated 29.12.2007 as published in the local newspaper “Dainik Jagran” on 30.12.2007 whereby the results of the examination for the post of Technical Assistant for which the petitioner had applied, has been sought to be modified and thereby denying the petitioner the benefit of appearing in the interview which was held on 15.01.2008. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the result published by the respondents, the petitioner was declared successful and accordingly he was to appear for the interview scheduled to be held on 15.01.2008. After publication of the result the impugned corrigendum was issued whereby it is sought to be explained that the petitioner’s name has wrongly been entered in the list of successful candidates. Learned counsel submits that the claim of the respondents that the name of the petitioner has wrongly been mentioned in the panel of the selected candidates, is erroneous, misleading and incorrect on account of the fact that the candidates who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner have been given privilege to be empanelled in the selected list and therefore, the petitioner could not possibly have been delisted from the panel. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent State informs that the interview has already been held on 15.01.2008 and therefore the petitioner’s prayer does not survive any more. It is submitted that in any case dispute raised by the petitioner involves a dispute on facts. 5. In light of the above facts and circumstances, there appears no reason to keep the present writ application surviving on board. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file his representation before the respondent No. 2 stating his claim on the ground thereof and on receipt of the representation the respondent shall consider the same and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and shall effectively communicate the order to the petitioner. With the above observations, this writ application is disposed of.