The benefit should go to the examination authority rather than the candidate in case of doubt, and no right accrues to the candidate for appointment as filling-up of vacancies lies within the domain of the employer.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the merit list (Annexure-6) in terms of which candidates’ names have been shortlisted for the physical test for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector and Constable in the limited competitive examination held on 26.11.2017, as several questions in the said examinations were framed erroneously, having wrong options in the multiple choice answer and some of the questions were out of syllabus.

Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to re-valuate/re-tabulate the answer scripts of the petitioner/ candidates appearing in the said examination, awarding marks for question which were framed erroneously and to re-publish the merit list of the candidates selected for physical test, as enough seats are still lying vacant. It has also been prayed that till then, the selection process of Sub-Inspector through the said examination be kept in abeyance.

3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. The respondent Commission published an advertisement being Advt. No. 9 of 2017 for appointment of Sub-Inspector through a limited competitive examination for a total number of 1544 seats throughout the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner fulfilling the requisite criteria, submitted his application before the respondents and has also appeared in the written examination held on 26.11.2017. It is the further case of the petitioner that the written examination comprised three papers namely, i) General Hindi; ii) General Knowledge; and iii) General Studies. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the advertisement itself provided the specific provisions of Law from which the questions would be asked. After conclusion of the written examination, the Commission published the 1st answer keys mentioning therein the corrected choice of the answers to the multiple choice questions and has invited objections from the aggrieved candidates, so published between the period from 01.12.2017 to 08.12.2017. In response to that, several objections were filed by the candidates, who appeared in the said examinations and taking into consideration all such objections, a revised 2nd answer key was published by the Commission on 28.12.2017. However, the 2nd revised answer key also contained several errors and as such, objections were filed by the candidates and consequently, the 3rd answer key was published by the Commission on 07.01.2018. Based on the 3rd answer key, the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission published the merit list on 08.01.2018 comprising candidates selected for physical test. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in the written test several questions were erroneously framed by the respondents having wrong answers in multiple choice answer and some of them were out of syllabus thereby seriously impairing the petitioner’s chances to score the 50% cut-off marks for selection in the written test for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector. Hence, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon’ble Court for redressal of his grievances.

4. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the respondents were duty bound to frame questions within the four corners of the syllabus so provided and the acts and action of the respondents in asking question beyond the purview of the syllabus was bad in law. Learned senior counsel further argues that as the questions are out of syllabus equal marks thereof should have been awarded to all the candidates for the same. It has further been argued that no additional marks has been granted even for the questions which were either wrong or having erroneous answers or beyond the syllabus insptie of the fact that the respondents are duty bound to grant additional marks for those questions. Learned senior counsel further argues that out of