Candidates must not suffer due to administrative negligence in examination evaluations, and proper procedures must be followed to ensure fair assessment.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a direction upon the respondents, in particular respondent-JPSC, to add marks after revaluating Question Nos. 5 and 6 of Section-A of the History Paper-III and Question No. 12 of Section-A of Indian Constitution and Political Public Administration Good Governance-Paper-IV of Main Examination, which relates to appointment pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2021 (Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination, 2021), so that the petitioner could get additional marks and she can succeed in the final merit list, which was published by the JPSC on 31.05.2022.

3. Shorn of unnecessary facts, it is stated that the Jharkhand Public Service Commission published Advertisement No. 01/2021 from eligible candidates on Class-II posts, pursuant to 7th to 10th Combined Civil Services Examination, 2021. The petitioner, belonging to Backward Class, applied for such examination. She appeared in the Preliminary Test and was found successful. Thereafter, the petitioner also appeared in the written test and did well and finally, the result was published on 30.04.2022 and as per her expectation, her name figured in the successful candidates. Thereafter, she was called for interview scheduled to be held on 13.05.2022. However, in the final merit list published on 31.05.2022, she did not find her name in the list of successful candidates. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application under the RTI Act for inspection of all papers given by the petitioner including the marks obtained in the interview. It is specific case of the petitioner that upon inspection, it was found that the marks of Question Nos. 5 and 6 of Section-A of History Paper-III and Question No. 12 of Section-A of Indian Constitution and Political and Public Administration and Good Governance (Paper-IV) have not been added in the total marks i.e. 629, obtained by the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that if the left over marks in number 6 has been added in her total marks, her name could be figured in the successful candidates of the final merit list. The petitioner made representation on 31.07.2023 ventilating her grievance before the respondent-JPSC, but no action was taken and hence, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

4. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is an aspirant and a meritorious candidate and because of laches on part of the JPSC, injustice has been caused and appropriate marks has not been allotted to her due to which she has been debarred from final selection. Learned counsel further argues that as per instruction of the petitioner, Question Nos. 5 and 6 of Section-A of History Paper-III and Question No. 12 of Section-A of Indian Constitution and Political and Public Administration and Good Governance (Paper-IV) remained uncorrected and no marks have been allotted for these answers and if the adequate marks are added in the total marks obtained by the petitioner, she could be selected in the final merit list.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel representing the respondent-JPSC is not in a position to controvert the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as he has also examined that the answers of Question Nos. 5 and 6 of Section-A of History Paper-III and Question No. 12 of Section-A of Indian Constitution and Political and Public Administration and Good Governance (Paper-IV) have not been corrected and no marks have been allotted against those answers. However, learned counsel submits that in order to rectify such negligence or omission, the JPSC is ready to get the same verified by the Experts and if it is found that no marks have been allotted on the particular questions or any injustice has been committed against the petitioner, the same shall be rectified within a stipulated period. Learned counsel further submits that if