The court upheld the decision of the respondent-authorities not to consider the appellant's candidature due to discrepancies in the answer sheets.

JUDGMENT :

1. By filing this intra court Appeal, the appellant-writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3575 of 2011, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant before the learned Single Judge was dismissed. The appellant-writ petitioner by filing the writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider the application of the writ petitioner for evaluating her answer sheets which is pending before respondent Nos. 3 and 4 since 2006. Further prayer has been made for considering the candidature of the writ petitioner for appointment to civil services posts as the cut-off marks as per the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) was 884, whereas, the writ petitioner has secured 879 marks and there has been no re-evaluation of GS-II and therefore, she had been denied her legitimate rights to be appointed to the said post.

2. The respondent-JPSC vide Advt. No.11/2002-03 had published notification of 1st Civil Services Examination, 2003 for appointment to different Civil Posts and pursuant to which the writ petitioner applied for the same and had been issued with the Admit Card. Thereafter, the writ petitioner appeared in the 1st Civil Services Mains Examination and was declared successful in the same. Thereafter, she faced the interview. The specific case of the writ petitioner is that in the entire selection process, she has done exceptionally well and hence, she was under the impression that her name will figure in the final merit list. However, when the final merit list was published her name was not forming part of it. She applied for re-evaluation of her answer-sheets. Thereafter, she received her mark-sheet by which she was informed that she obtained 66% marks in optional papers i.e. History & Zoology and 70% in General Studies-I, whereas, in G.S.-II, she has obtained 45% marks only. On 08.07.2006, she applied for re-totaling of the marks as she was apprehending manipulations in the results by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. After filing of the representation, she also sought information under RTI Act as to the action taken on her representation submitted on 08.07.2006. As she was not given any reply the writ petitioner approached the 1st Appellate Authority and thereafter, before the State Information Commission for providing copy of the Paper-II of General Studies but the respondent-JPSC did not provide her copy of the said paper. Hence, the writ petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of her grievances.

3. The respondent-JPSC, inter alia, pleaded in the counter affidavit that written examination of 1st Combined Civil Services Mains Examination, 2003, was held from 23.06.2005 to 03.07.2005 and the writ petitioner has not been recommended by the JPSC for appointment in view of the fact that she has secured less marks than the last recommended candidate in her category.

4. Learned counsel further argues that on 14.06.2019, this Court after hearing the counsel for the parties as well as the CBI has directed that question Nos. 5 & 6 has not been evaluated by the JPSC, whereas, learned counsel for the JPSC contended that there was manipulation in the answer sheets of the writ petitioner and extra copy has been tagged after examination which is a matter of investigation. Therefore, learned Single Judge has further observed that it fails to understand that when JPSC itself was custodian of the Answer sheets of all the candidates, how such manipulation took place. The learned Single Judge further held that upon going through the different orders of the Court and rival submissions of the parties, the Court was of the considered opinion that the Chairman, JPSC shall constitute a Board consisting of experts of General Studies Paper i.e. one Examiner and one Head Examiner under the supervision of Superintendent of Police, (EOW), CBI. It was further directed that the Committee shall examine the entire matter in depth and ascer