Back
2019 Supreme(Pat) 443
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.
Ashoke Krantti Son of Akhileshwar Prasad Singh & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1504 of 2018 with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16925, 17634, 16974, 18663 of 2017
Decided On : 19-07-2019
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Y. V.Giri, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Dinu Kumar, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Ritika Rani, Ms. Kumari Neha, Mr. Vijay Kumar Vimal
For the Respondents: Mr. S.C. Mishra -Sc16, Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, AC to SC-16, Mr. Lalit Kishore, AG, Mr. Girijesh Kumar
Headnote:
Service Law – Appointment – Bihar Elementary Teachers Eligibility Test – Writ petition filed for directing respondent-Board to reduce qualifying marks considering fact that Board has deleted 28 wrong questions out of total 150 questions and to publish result – Petitioners contending that either wrong questions should be excluded from paper and no marks should be assigned to them and accordingly, OMR sheets of candidates should be re-evaluated on the basis of correct key consisting of correct answer-sheets – Candidature of candidates using whitener having been declared to be invalid – Wrong questions were deleted and answer-sheets were evaluated and then result was published by lowering down full marks corresponding to wrong questions, corresponding to concerned paper – Respondent-Board had again appointed a committee of subject experts to deal with fresh objections received by respondent-Board from appearing candidates – Non-submission of objections clearly depict that writ petitioners had no grievances against revised model answer key – Board has taken full care to delete defective questions which is in line with mandate of law – Candidates were strictly instructed not to overwrite or use whitener – Candidates had been cautioned to literally follow instructions and in case, OMR sheets are not properly filled up then same would be rejected by computer resulting in invalidation of their result for which candidate shall be solely responsible – Writ petitions dismissed. (Paras 14, 28, 30 and 31)
Cases Referred:
Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2013 (2) BLJ 118 (SC) : (2013) 4 SCC 690; Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission vs. A.B. Natarajan, 2014(14) SCC 95; Hanuman Datt Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018(16) SCC 447 – Referred.
Hanuman Datt Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018(16) SCC 447 – Not a Binding Precedent.
Kanpur University vs. Samir Gupta, AIR 1983 SC 1230; Dhananjay Kumar Mishra vs. Bihar Staff Selection Commission, 2013 (4) PLJR 169; Ravindra Kumar Singh vs. The High Court of Judicature at Patna, 2016 (1) PLJR 865; Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur, 2010 (6) SCC759 – Relied.
JUDGMENT :
All the aforesaid writ petitions have been heard at length with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the respective writ petitioners, as also the respondents and it has been agreed that all the writ petitions be disposed of by a common judgment since the issues involved in all the aforesaid writ petitions are common.
2. On behalf of the writ petitioners, arguments have been advanced by the learned Senior Counsel/counsels, whose appearance have been indicated hereinabove.
3. The learned Advocate General has argued on behalf of the Bihar School Examination Board (herein after referred to as the “Board”).
4. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the first writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 1504 of 2018 (Ashoke Krantti & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) are being considered for the purposes of the present judgment. The Bihar School Examination Board has also filed counter affidavits in all the aforesaid writ petitions.
5. The present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondent-Board to reduce the qualifying marks considering the fact that the Board has deleted 28 wrong questions out of total 150 questions in the Bihar Elementary Teachers Eligibility Test (herein after referred to as the “BETET”), 2017. The petitioners have further prayed to direct the Board to award marks to those candidates, who have made corrections by whitener and to direct for inquiry by the Vigilance Department regarding wrong setting of questions and answers and not awarding marks to the candidates during the course of evaluation of the answer-sheets pertaining to the BETET, 2017. Lastly, it has been prayed to publish the result of those writ petitioners pertaining to the BETET, 2017 whose results have not been published.
6. The brief facts of the case are that an advertisement bearing advertisement no. 42 dated 6.4.2017 was issued in the daily newspaper, seeking to conduct the BETET, 2017 and the said examination was to be conducted for teaching in Class 1 to 5 in Primary School as well as for Class 6 to 8. The last date for submission of application form was fixed as 25.4.2017, but the same was extended to 30.4.2017. The writ petitioners having requisite qualifications had filled the forms. Subsequently, another advertisement bearing advertisement no. 54 of 2017 was issued whereby and where under one more opportunity was granted to the candidates to remove the error in the online application form which had not been removed and for the said purpose, date was fixed from 18.5.2017 to 20.5.2017. Accordingly, the date of examination was also extended and ultimately, the examination was held on 23.7.2017 wherein the writ petitioners had also appeared. After the examination was held, an advertisement no. 75 of 2017 was published wherein it was stated that the OMR sheets of the respective candidates were being uploaded on the website and in case, any candidate has any objection, such candidate can submit online objection on or before 25.10.2017. Thereafter, another advertisement bearing advertisement no. 83 of 2017 was issued by the Board wherein it was stated that those candidates, who are not satisfied with their marks, can submit their applications for scrutiny of the OMR answer-sheets and for obtaining copy of their respective OMR answer-sheets in between 23.9.2017 to 30.9.2017, after depositing the requisite fees.
7. The further case of the writ petitioners is that the Board had conducted the aforesaid BETET, 2017 and the result was published on 21.9.2017. The writ petitioners were surprised that their names did not find place amongst the list of successful candidates and most of the candidates' result had been declared invalid. Subsequently, it transpired that the result of the candidates had been declared invalid on account of use of whitener or eraser etc.
8. The learned Senior Counsel/counsels for the petitioners have argued that the Board itself has admitted, at the time of publishing the result, that 28 questions wer
