Rajesh Kumar
Rajesh Kumar
Rajesh Kumar
Versus
With
Versus
J U D G M E N T
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
at Patna whereby the High Court has directed the Bihar Staff
merit list on that basis. For those who have already been appointed
been directed by the High Court before they are finally ousted from
have assailed the order passed by the High Court in these appeals
Page 1
which arise in the following backdrop:
(Civil) out of which 1057 posts were in the open merit category.
produce the answer-sheets in the Court and to get the same re-
included in the merit list. Posting orders were also issued to all
those appointed. Needless to say that since only 210 candidates had
Page 2
Single Judge of the High Court referred the “Model Answer Key” to
(Prof.) C.N. Sinha, and Prof. KSP Singh, associated with NIT,
two questions were also found to be wrong while two others were
defective as the choices in the answer key were printed but only
partially.
the High Court held that 41 model answers out of 100 were wrong.
It was also held that two questions were wrong while two others
were repeated. The Single Judge on that basis held that the entire
the errors in the question paper and the “Model Answer Key”.
filed LPA No.70 of 2008 before the Division Bench of that High
Court. By the order impugned in these appeals, the High Court has
45 questions out of 100 were wrong. The Division Bench modified the
order passed by the learned Single Judge and declared that the
Bench further held that while those appointed on the basis of the
Page 3
impugned selection shall be allowed to continue until publication
of the fresh result, anyone of them who failed to make the grade on
the said judgment and order of the High Court as already noticed
earlier.
process referred to above was still pending before the High Court,
29th July 2007. This test was held pursuant to advertisement No.1906
appeal filed before it with a direction to the effect that the same
dated 30th August 2011 with a direction that those qualified shall
Page 4
appointed while the remaining have not chosen to join is also
10. When the matter came up before us on 2nd July 2012, it was
condition that the answer scripts of the writ petitioners are re-
evaluated with the help of a correct answer key and if they are
them in terms of the 2nd selection process related back to the date
the basis of a correct key and their placement in the merit list
file an affidavit.
Page 5
the High Court would lead to multiplicity of legal proceedings as
12. We have in the above backdrop heard learned counsel for the
appellants, Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel, argued that the
process even when the petitioners had not made any prayer to that
effect. Mr. Rao was at pains to argue that a relief which was not
even prayed for by the writ petitioners could not be granted by the
Court whatever may have been the compulsion of equity, justice and
and State of Orissa & Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436.
There is, in our view, no merit in that contention. The reasons are
not far to seek. It is true that the writ petitioners had not
But it is wholly incorrect to say that the relief prayed for by the
plain reading of the writ petition questioned not only the process
specifically averred that the “Model Answer Key” which formed the
basis for such evaluation was erroneous. One of the questions that,
whether the “Model Answer Key” was correct. The High Court had
Page 6
already noticed above, found the “Model Answer Key” to be erroneous
also found to which we have referred earlier. If the key which was
used for evaluating the answer sheets was itself defective the
This was bound to affect the result of the entire examination qua
It also goes without saying that if the result was vitiated by the
in that view, entitled to mould the relief prayed for in the writ
Dosukhan (2010) 1 SCC 234 and State of Orissa & anr. v. Mamata
Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436, relied upon by Mr. Rao are clearly
parties. The first limb of the argument advanced by Mr. Rao fails
14. Mr. Rao next argued that even if the result of the first
Page 7
selection process was vitiated by the use of erroneous “Model
Answer Key” the Court had the option of either directing re-
according to Mr. Rao, better and ought to have served the purpose
by not only saving considerable time but money and effort also. He
urged that the Court could have removed the traces of any injustice
of the answer scripts which would not only present the true picture
time.
Prof. KSP Singh of NIT, Patna forming the basis of any such re-
Nos.6 and 46 which were found to be absurd and question No.34 and
63 which were repeated as Nos.74 and 93. They further agreed to the
printed.
16. The submissions made by Mr. Rao are not without merit. Given
the nature of the defect in the answer key the most natural and
Page 8
correct the key and get the answer scripts re-evaluated on the
apart from being quicker. The process would also not give any
lag between the examination earlier held and the one that may have
17. That brings us to the submission by Mr. Rao that while re-
the appellants should they be found to fall below the ‘cut off’
mark in the merit list. Mr. Rao gave two reasons in support of that
contended that the appellants have served the State efficiently and
Page 9
without any complaint for nearly seven years now and most of them,
if not all, may have become overage for fresh recruitment within
the State or outside the State. They have also lost the
year 2007. Their ouster from service after their employment on the
the years would also, according to Mr. Rao, go waste as the State
will not have the advantage of using valuable human resource which
was found useful in the service of the people of the State of Bihar
ouster from service, if they fell below the cut off line.
goes without saying that the appellants were innocent parties who
Page 10
entitled to issue of appointment letters on the basis of their
19. In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the order
(2) Candidates who figure in the merit list but have not been
benefit whatsoever.
(4) Such of the appellants as do not make the grade after re-
Page 11
No.1406 of 2006 and the second selection held pursuant to
…........………..……J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
...…......…………..……J.
(GYAN SUDHA MISRA)
New Delhi
March 13, 2013
Page 12