JUDGMENT :

In these three Cr.M.Ps, common F.I.R and cognizance order are under challenge and that is why all these petitions are being heard and disposed of together.

2. Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, the learned counsel [in Cr.MP 1893/20 and Cr.MP 1079/18], Mr. Manoj Kumar and Mr. Arvind Prajapati, the learned counsels [in Cr.MP No.1086/18] appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mrs. Priya Shrestha [in Cr.MP 1086/18], Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. V.S. Sahay, [in Cr.MP 1893/20 and Cr.MP 1079/18] the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

3. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Daltonganj Town P.S.Case No.382 of 2017, corresponding to G.R.Case No.2536 of 2017 including the order taking cognizance dated 15.01.2018, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj.

4. The F.I.R was instituted alleging therein that :

The Deputy Collector (Establishment) has lodged the First Information Report alleging therein that on 05.11.2017 an examination for appointment of 4th grade was conducted at 26 different centres and thereafter a committee consisting four members was made for counselling. It has been further alleged that on 12.11.2017, 31 candidates out of 34 selected candidates appeared before the committee for their counselling. It is further alleged that the informant received information regarding irregularities in said examination from different areas. It has further been alleged that on the day of counselling after verification of certificates a written test was conducted in such test 50 question was asked in which 16 questions were same as was asked on 05.11.2017 and rest 34 questions were similar. Thereafter all answer sheets were examined by the committees in which it was noticed that 30 candidates out of 31 candidates obtained very low marks than the marks obtained in the examination held on 05.11.2017. It is further alleged that the candidates could not give answer to the question asked by the counselling team and further it has been alleged that the candidates who have been selected have obtained more marks in the examination held on 05.11.2017 by committing mischief.

5. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners appeared in the examination for appointment on the post of Class-IV grade employee in the Establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. He submits that the petitioners’ examination was held on 05.11.2017 in which the petitioners have been declared successful. Pursuant thereto, merit list was prepared on 18.01.2020. The petitioners were called for counselling on 12.11.2017 and on that day again the petitioners were asked to appear in the re-examination. The re-examination was challenged before this Court in W.P.(S) No.6709/2017 and analogous cases which was disposed of by this Court wherein it has been held that appointment has to be carried out in accordance with the advertisement notice. It was further held that once they have come out appointment notice in the mid-way rule of the game cannot be allowed to be changed. On this observation, the writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to prepare merit list as per the marks obtained in the written exam conducted on 05.11.2017. Pursuant thereto, the merit list prepared in which the name of the petitioners were also figured. He further submits that only on the ground of available lesser mark in the re-examination conducted on 12.11.2017 the F.I.R. was lodged on 13.11.2017. He further submits that none of the petitioners caught red-handed while writing examination. He further elaborately his argument and submitted that the cognizance has been taken under the penal provisions wherein the case is arising out of an examination and penalty is prescribed under the Bihar Conduct of Examination Act, 1981 and this Act has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand. He submits that cognizance taken under section