Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 416 (JHR)

Md. Lal Ali v. State of Jharkhand

2014-03-24

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Order The appellant approached this Court seeking for a direction upon the respondents to declare him as a successful candidate in the examination of Hindi language. 2. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 25th of March, 2010, vide Advertisement No.01/2010, the appellant had appeared in the selection process and he succeeded in the physical test. In the written test, a candidate was required to obtain 30% marks in Hindi paper. The written test comprised of two parts and a candidate was required to obtain pass marks in both the parts. However, the appellant could obtain only two marks out of 10 and thus, he could secure only 20% marks and therefore, he was not declared successful and consequently not offered appointment on the post of constable. 3. Before the writ court a counter affidavit was filed in which it was stated that the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj had written letter dated 29th of January, 2011 to the District Education Officer, Sahibganj to nominate professionals (Teachers/Lecturers), who were experts in the languages of Hindi, Angika, Khortha, Bengali and Santhali and were competent and experts in evaluation of the answer-sheets of the written examination. Consequently, the District Education Officer nominated the professionals who have evaluated the answer scripts of the written examination. The expert had awarded marks of evaluation of the answer-sheets and the appellant could secure only 20% as against 30% of the minimum marks for being declared successful. 4. A stand has been taken by the respondents that since expert professionals had evaluated the answer-sheets, no interference was required by this Court in the matter. 5. The learned Single Judge, considering the plea raised by the appellant as well as the stand taken by the respondent-State of Jharkhand, dismissed the writ petition and observed that since the petitioner (appellant herein) failed to qualify in the written paper by scoring only 20% marks instead of 30% marks, he was rightly not offered appointment on the post of constable. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that though in the advertisement dated 25th March, 2010 it is indicated that the test in Hindi language would comprise 100 marks, the answer-sheet, a copy of which has been provided to the appellant through RTI, would indicate that evaluation of only 10 marks has been done by the experts. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that though in the advertisement dated 25th March, 2010 it is indicated that the test in Hindi language would comprise 100 marks, the answer-sheet, a copy of which has been provided to the appellant through RTI, would indicate that evaluation of only 10 marks has been done by the experts. On this ground, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that since the appellant could score two marks out of 10 marks, without ascertaining and comparing the answer-sheets of other candidates, the appellant could not have been declared failed and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition without directing the respondents to produce the answer-sheets of other candidates for being compared with the answer-sheet of the appellant. 7. Ms. Shivani Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that since the answer-sheets have been evaluated by the experts duly nominated by the District Education Officer, the plea raised by the appellant cannot be entertained by this Court. The learned counsel has further submitted that the plea of the appellant that due to some problem in the loudspeaker the dictation was inaudible to the appellant and therefore, he could not write the paper properly would be applicable to all other candidates and therefore such plea is also liable to be rejected. 8. Having considered the contention raised by the counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that this Letters Patent Appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is not in dispute that the appellant participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement No.1/2010 in which he failed to secure the minimum marks for passing in the Hindi paper. The stand taken by the official respondents that the answer-sheet has been evaluated by the experts (Lecturers and Teachers), cannot be faulted with and merely because the sample answer-sheet of other persons have not been called by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that there has been no material on record to show that the dictation given was inaudible, incoherent and the answer sheet of the appellant did not lead to any continuous reading. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that there has been no material on record to show that the dictation given was inaudible, incoherent and the answer sheet of the appellant did not lead to any continuous reading. The learned Single Judge has also observed that there is no Rule otherwise also mandating re-evaluation of the answer-sheets of the candidates and, therefore, re-evaluation of the answer-sheet could not have been ordered by the writ court. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no error in the order impugned in the present proceeding and accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.