COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BENCH
HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. M.R SHAH
DATE OF ORDER
APRIL 28, 2023
PARTIES
APPLLEANT- Sachit Kumar Singh & Ors. Etc. Etc.
RESPONDENT- The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Etc. Etc.
SUBJECT
OVERVIEW
- The present appeals are filed against the impugned order and judgement passed by division bench of Jharkhand High Court.
- In its judgement, HC dismissed the appeals and did not interfere in the decision of the single bench of HC.
- The facts are such that the respondents published an advertisement inviting application for candidates to appear and qualify examination for the post of Sub Inspector of Police.
- The criteria laid out was to get minimum of 45% of marks in Paper-2 and Paper-3 and to obtain 50% in the written examination for the purpose of qualifying the exam.
- The original writ petitioners failed due to one or two marks and raised objections against the answer key. They filed writ petition before the High Court to get relief.
- The learned single bench dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by which they preferred appeal before division bench of HC.
- The said bench dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the objections were not raised within the time period and said no prejudice was caused to the original writ petitioners (appellants herein)
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY
- The learned counsel submitted that the first representation made by the appellants on 01.12.2017 was within the time limit given to raise objections.
- It was contended that the HC has materially erred in recognizing the fact and therefore dismissed the appeals.
- The counsel submitted that addition of marks would have been done to all candidates and no prejudice shall be caused to the appellants.
- The counsel highlighted that out of 1544 posts advertised only 396 appointments were done and the rest posts remained vacant.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT
- The learned counsel submitted that the reason behind non-selection of the appellants was that they failed to obtain minimum marks which was the criteria for evaluation.
- The counsel contended that the High Court had correctly examined that the objections raised were after the stipulated time.
- It was contended by the counsel that even if there would have been any flaw with respect to certain questions then the marks would have been added to all candidates and hence no prejudice shall be caused to the appellants.
- It was loaded to dismiss the appeals.
JUDGEMENT
- The apex court allowed the present appeals and quashed the impugned order and judgement passed by the High Court.
- It was observed by the Court that the representations made by the appellants on 06.01.2018 and 08.01.2018 were before the date of result i.e 9.01.2018.
- Court said that the High Court should have ought to accepted the representations on merits and allowed for expert’s opinion so that the truth would have come to out.
- Court held that in the impugned judgement, HC committed a material error in observing that no prejudice shall be caused to appellants as marks would be added to all candidates.
- It was said that the non-selection of appellants was due to short of one or two marks, the added marks would have made them eligible for selection to the post.
- Court remanded the matter to the division bench of HC for fresh consideration and call for expert’s opinion for the alleged questions and their answers.
CONCLUSION
Court directed the division bench to consider the matter on merits and look upon whether marks are to added or not. If it is observed that marks are to added, this would make appellants eligible for the post.
